A Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Destination‑Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing HeaderCisco Systems, Inc.Building D45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis06254France+33 497 23 26 34pthubert@cisco.comCisco Systems, Inc.Xinsi BuildingNo. 926 Yi Shan RdShanghai200233Chinaliz3@cisco.comIoTHeader CompressionSource Routing HeaderHop-by-Hop HeaderRPL artifacts
This document updates RFC 8138 by defining a bit in the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG)
Configuration option to indicate whether compression is used within the
RPL Instance and to specify the behavior of nodes compliant with RFC 8138
when the bit is set and unset.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further
information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of
RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
() in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
. Introduction
. Terminology
. Related Documents
. Glossary
. Requirements Language
. Extending RFC 6550
. Updating RFC 8138
. Transition Scenarios
. Coexistence
. Inconsistent State While Migrating
. Rolling Back
. IANA Considerations
. Security Considerations
. References
. Normative References
. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
Introduction
The design of Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) is generally focused on
saving energy, which is the most constrained resource of all. The routing
optimizations in "" , such as routing along a
Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) to a Root Node and the
associated routing header compression and forwarding technique specified in
, derive from that primary concern.
Enabling on a running network requires a "flag day",
where the network is upgraded and rebooted.
Otherwise, if acting as a leaf, a node that does not
support compression per would fail to communicate; if acting as a router, it
would drop the compressed packets and black-hole a portion of the network.
This specification enables a hot upgrade where a live network is migrated. During the migration, compression remains inactive until all nodes are upgraded.
This document complements and signals whether it
should be used within a RPL DODAG with a new flag in the RPL DODAG
Configuration option.
The setting of this new flag is controlled by the Root and propagates as
is in the whole network as part of the normal RPL signaling.
The flag is cleared to ensure that compression remains inactive during
the migration phase. When the migration is complete (e.g., as known by
network management and/or inventory), the flag is set and compression
is globally activated in the whole DODAG.
TerminologyRelated Documents
The terminology used in this document is consistent with, and incorporates
the terms provided in, "" .
Other terms in use as related to LLNs are found in "" .
"RPL", "RPL Packet Information" (RPI), and "RPL Instance" (indexed by a
RPLInstanceID) are defined in "" .
The RPI is the abstract
information that RPL defines to be placed in data packets, e.g., as the RPL
Option within the IPv6 Hop-By-Hop Header.
By extension, the term "RPI" is often used to refer to the RPL Option itself.
The DODAG Information Solicitation (DIS), Destination Advertisement Object
(DAO), and DODAG Information Object (DIO) messages are also specified in
.
This document uses the terms "RPL-Unaware Leaf" (RUL) and "RPL-Aware Leaf"
(RAL) consistently with "Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes, and IPv6-in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane".
The term "RPL-Aware Node" (RAN) refers to a node that is either
a RAL or a RPL router. A RAN manages the reachability of its addresses and
prefixes by injecting them in RPL by itself. In contrast, a RUL leverages
""
to obtain reachability services from its parent router(s)
as specified in "Routing for RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) Leaves".
Glossary This document often uses the following abbreviations:
6LoRH:
6LoWPAN Routing Header
6LoWPAN:
IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
DIO:
DODAG Information Object (a RPL message)
DODAG:
Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph
LLN:
Low-Power and Lossy Network
MOP:
RPL Mode of Operation
RAL:
RPL-Aware Leaf
RAN:
RPL-Aware Node
RPI:
RPL Packet Information
RPL:
IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
RUL:
RPL-Unaware Leaf
SRH:
Source Routing Header
Sub-DODAG:
The sub-DODAG of a node is a DODAG rooted at that node that is a subset of a main DODAG the node belongs to. It is formed by the other nodes in the
main DODAG whose paths to the main DODAG root pass through that node.
Requirements LanguageThe key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
when, and only
when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.Extending RFC 6550
The DODAG Configuration option is defined in . Its purpose is extended to distribute configuration
information affecting the construction and maintenance of the DODAG, as
well as operational parameters for RPL on the DODAG, through the DODAG.
The DODAG Configuration option was originally
designed with four bit positions reserved for future use as flags.
This specification defines a new flag, "Enable Compression per RFC 8138 (T)".
The 'T' flag is set to turn on the use of
within the DODAG. The 'T' flag is encoded
in position 2 of the reserved flags in the DODAG Configuration option (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) and set to 0 in
legacy implementations as specified in
Sections and of , respectively.
updates
to indicate that the definition of the flags applies to Mode of Operation (MOP) values zero (0) to six (6) only.
For a MOP value of 7, MUST be used on links where 6LoWPAN Header
Compression applies and MUST NOT be used otherwise.
The RPL DODAG Configuration option is typically placed in
a DIO message. The DIO message propagates down the
DODAG to form and then maintain its structure. The DODAG Configuration option
is copied unmodified from parents to children.
states that "Nodes other than the DODAG root
MUST NOT modify this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration option."
Therefore, a legacy parent propagates the 'T' flag as set by the Root, and
when the 'T' flag is set, it is transparently flooded to all the nodes in the DODAG.
Updating RFC 8138
A node SHOULD generate packets in compressed form using
if and only if the 'T' flag
is set. This behavior can be overridden by configuration or network
management. Overriding may be needed, e.g., to turn on compression in a
network where all nodes support but the Root does
not support this specification and cannot set the 'T' flag, or to disable it
locally in case of a problem.
The decision to use is made by the originator of
the packet, depending on its capabilities and its knowledge of the state of
the 'T' flag.
A router encapsulating a packet is the originator of the resulting
packet and is responsible for compressing the outer headers per
, but it MUST NOT perform compression on the encapsulated packet.
An external target is not
expected to support . In most cases, packets to and
from an external target are tunneled back and forth between the border router
(referred to as a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR)) that serves the external target and the Root, regardless
of the MOP used in the RPL DODAG.
The inner packet is typically not compressed per ,
so for outgoing packets, the border router just needs to decapsulate the
(compressed) outer header and forward the (uncompressed) inner packet towards
the external target.
A border router that forwards a packet to an external target MUST
uncompress the packet first. In all other cases, a router MUST
forward a packet in the form that the source used, either compressed or
uncompressed.
A RUL is both a leaf and an
external target. A RUL does not participate in RPL and
depends on the parent router to obtain connectivity. In the case of a RUL,
forwarding towards an external target actually means delivering the packet.
Transition Scenarios
A node that supports but not this specification
can only be used in a homogeneous network.
Enabling compression per without a turn-on signaling
method requires a flag day, by which time all nodes must be upgraded and
at which point the network can be rebooted with 6LoRH compression turned on.
The intent of this specification is to perform a migration once and for all,
without the need for a flag day. In particular, the intent is not to
undo the setting of the 'T' flag.
Though it is possible to roll back (see ), the rollback
operation SHOULD be complete before the network operator adds nodes
that do not support .
Coexistence
A node that supports this specification can operate in a network with 6LoRH
compression turned on or off with the 'T' flag set
accordingly and in a network in transition from off to on or on to off
(see ).
A node that does not support can interoperate with
nodes that do in a network with 6LoRH compression turned
off. If compression is turned on, all the RANs are expected
to be able to handle packets in compressed form. A node that
cannot do so may remain connected to the network as a RUL as described in
.
Inconsistent State While Migrating
When the 'T' flag is turned on by the Root, the
information slowly percolates through the DODAG as the DIO gets propagated.
Some nodes will see the flag and start sourcing packets in compressed
form, while other nodes in the same RPL DODAG will still not be aware of it.
In Non-Storing mode, the Root will start using
with a Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH)
that routes all the way to the parent router or to the leaf.
To ensure that a packet is forwarded across the RPL DODAG in the form in
which it was generated, it is required that all the RPL nodes support
at the time of the switch.
Setting the 'T' flag is ultimately the responsibility of the network
administrator. The expectation is that the network management or upgrading
tools in place enable the network administrator to know when all the nodes
that may join a DODAG were migrated. In the case of a RPL Instance with
multiple Roots, all nodes that participate in the RPL Instance may
potentially join any DODAG.
The network MUST be operated with the 'T' flag unset until all nodes in the
RPL Instance are upgraded to support this specification.
Rolling Back
When turning 6LoRH compression off in the network, the
network administrator MUST wait until each node has its 'T' flag
unset before allowing nodes that do not support compression in
the network. Information regarding whether compression is active in a node
SHOULD be exposed in the node's management interface.
Nodes that do not support SHOULD NOT be deployed
in a network where compression is turned on. If that is done, the node
can only operate as a RUL.
IANA Considerations
This specification updates the "DODAG Configuration Option Flags for MOP
0..6" registry (formerly the "DODAG Configuration Option Flags" registry, which was created for ), by allocating one
new flag as follows:
New DODAG Configuration Option Flag
Bit Number
Capability Description
Reference
2
Enable Compression per RFC 8138 (T)
RFC 9035
IANA has added this document as a reference for MOP 7 in the RPL "Mode of Operation" registry.
Security Considerations
It is worth noting that in RPL , every node in the
LLN that is RPL aware and has access to the RPL domain can inject any RPL-based attack in the network; see for details.
This document typically applies to an existing deployment and does not change
its security requirements and operations.
It is assumed that the security mechanisms as defined for RPL are followed.
Setting the 'T' flag before all routers are upgraded may cause a loss
of packets. The new bit benefits from the same protection as the rest of the
information in the DODAG Configuration option that transports it. Touching
the new bit is just one of the many attacks that can happen if an
attacker manages to inject a corrupted configuration option in the network.
Setting and unsetting the 'T' flag may create inconsistencies in the network,
but as long as all nodes are upgraded to provide support for ,
they will be able to forward both forms. The source is responsible
for selecting whether the packet is compressed or not, and all routers must
use the format that the source selected. So, the result of an inconsistency
is merely that both forms will be present in the network, at an additional
cost of bandwidth for packets in uncompressed form.
An attacker may unset the 'T' flag to force additional energy consumption of child or descendant nodes in its sub-DODAG.
Conversely, it may set the 'T' flag so
that nodes located downstream would compress packets even when compression is not desired, potentially causing packet loss. In a tree structure, the attacker would be in a position to drop the packets from and to the attacked nodes. So, the attacks mentioned above would be more complex and more visible than simply dropping selected packets. The downstream node may have other parents and see the bit with both
settings; such a situation may be detected, and an alert may be triggered.
ReferencesNormative ReferencesKey words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement LevelsIn many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy NetworksLow-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are a class of network in which both the routers and their interconnect are constrained. LLN routers typically operate with constraints on processing power, memory, and energy (battery power). Their interconnects are characterized by high loss rates, low data rates, and instability. LLNs are comprised of anything from a few dozen to thousands of routers. Supported traffic flows include point-to-point (between devices inside the LLN), point-to-multipoint (from a central control point to a subset of devices inside the LLN), and multipoint-to-point (from devices inside the LLN towards a central control point). This document specifies the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL), which provides a mechanism whereby multipoint-to-point traffic from devices inside the LLN towards a central control point as well as point-to-multipoint traffic from the central control point to the devices inside the LLN are supported. Support for point-to-point traffic is also available. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy NetworksThis document provides a glossary of terminology used in routing requirements and solutions for networks referred to as Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs). An LLN is typically composed of many embedded devices with limited power, memory, and processing resources interconnected by a variety of links. There is a wide scope of application areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building automation (e.g., heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, access control, fire), connected home, health care, environmental monitoring, urban sensor networks, energy management, assets tracking, and refrigeration.IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing HeaderThis specification introduces a new IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) dispatch type for use in 6LoWPAN route-over topologies, which initially covers the needs of Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) data packet compression (RFC 6550). Using this dispatch type, this specification defines a method to compress the RPL Option (RFC 6553) information and Routing Header type 3 (RFC 6554), an efficient IP-in-IP technique, and is extensible for more applications.Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key WordsRFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor DiscoveryThis specification updates RFC 6775 -- the Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery specification -- to clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique and simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, as well as to provide enhancements to the registration capabilities and mobility detection for different network topologies, including the Routing Registrars performing routing for host routes and/or proxy Neighbor Discovery in a low-power network.Routing for RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) LeavesThis specification provides a mechanism for a host that implements a routing-agnostic interface based on IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery to obtain reachability services across a network that leverages RFC 6550 for its routing operations. It updates RFCs 6550, 6775, and 8505.Informative ReferencesCompression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based NetworksThis document updates RFC 4944, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks". This document specifies an IPv6 header compression format for IPv6 packet delivery in Low Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs). The compression format relies on shared context to allow compression of arbitrary prefixes. How the information is maintained in that shared context is out of scope. This document specifies compression of multicast addresses and a framework for compressing next headers. UDP header compression is specified within this framework. [STANDARDS-TRACK]The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane DatagramsThe Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) includes routing information in data-plane datagrams to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing topology. This document describes the RPL Option for use among RPL routers to include such routing information. [STANDARDS-TRACK]Terminology for Constrained-Node NetworksThe Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices with severe constraints on power, memory, and processing resources, creating constrained-node networks. This document provides a number of basic terms that have been useful in the standardization work for constrained-node networks.A Security Threat Analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPLs)This document presents a security threat analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPLs). The development builds upon previous work on routing security and adapts the assessments to the issues and constraints specific to low-power and lossy networks. A systematic approach is used in defining and evaluating the security threats. Applicable countermeasures are application specific and are addressed in relevant applicability statements.Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes, and IPv6-in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data PlaneThis document looks at different data flows through Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLN) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases where RPL Packet Information (RPI) Option Type (RFC 6553), RPL Source Route Header (RFC 6554), and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation are required in the data plane. This analysis provides the basis upon which to design efficient compression of these headers. This document updates RFC 6553 by adding a change to the RPI Option Type. Additionally, this document updates RFC 6550 by defining a flag in the DODAG Information Object (DIO) Configuration option to indicate this change and updates RFC 8138 as well to consider the new Option Type when the RPL Option is decompressed.Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank
, , , ,
, , , ,
,
and especially , , ,
and for their in-depth reviews and constructive suggestions.
Also, many thanks to for always being helpful and responsive when the need arises.
Authors' AddressesCisco Systems, Inc.Building D45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis06254France+33 497 23 26 34pthubert@cisco.comCisco Systems, Inc.Xinsi BuildingNo. 926 Yi Shan RdShanghai200233Chinaliz3@cisco.com