Re: [6lo] #6 (routing-dispatch): Thomas Watteyne review December 14th
"6lo issue tracker" <trac+6lo@tools.ietf.org> Tue, 12 January 2016 07:45 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+6lo@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675331A0406 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_LITTLE=1.555, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bST46gHKmafm for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F5A51A0404 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:38943 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+6lo@tools.ietf.org>) id 1aIteG-0006MD-08; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:45:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: 6lo issue tracker <trac+6lo@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.5
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.5, by Edgewall Software
To: pthubert@cisco.com
X-Trac-Project: 6lo
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:45:47 -0000
X-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/6lo/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lo/trac/ticket/6#comment:2
Message-ID: <072.5cd6cd3ae9cde317aeb50859b982db79@tools.ietf.org>
References: <057.712d1654e71d1873ef3a7f2873bfb5a3@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 6
In-Reply-To: <057.712d1654e71d1873ef3a7f2873bfb5a3@tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: pthubert@cisco.com, 6lo@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+6lo@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/DiBKMWbp9q13Y2aq1RQxTaqgPaY>
Cc: 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] #6 (routing-dispatch): Thomas Watteyne review December 14th
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:45:53 -0000
#6: Thomas Watteyne review December 14th Comment (by pthubert@cisco.com): Hello Thomas: I created Ticket #6: “Thomas Watteyne review December 14th” to address your review. Thanks a bunch for it! I stored the current result here: https://bitbucket.org/6lo/rpi/src/master /draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-01.txt Please see below (there are questions left for you): Following the adoption of draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00, please find my detailed review of the draft below. On top of questions and suggestions which I prefixed with TW>, I made inline changes for tiny editorial nits. Authors, please use diff to see those. PT > ack, I’ll be working off a diff; when just picking your suggestion I’m not commenting Thomas --- TW> I've done some editing directly inline, so please use a diff tool to see what I did TW> for questions and suggestions, I used the TW> prefix PT > ack The RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams [RFC6553] specification indicates how the RPI can be placed in a RPL Option for use in an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header. This representation demands a total of 8 bytes when in most cases the actual RPI payload requires only 19 bits. Since the Hop-by-Hop header must not flow outside of the RPL domain, it must be removed from packets that leave the domain, and be inserted in packets entering the domain. In both cases, this operation implies an IP-in-IP encapsulation. TW> It would be good to indicate here what IP-in-IP encapsulation looks like when using 6LoWPAN. TW> This doc talks about 8 bytes later on, it would be good to see where this comes from (yes, I could take RFC6282, but I'm lazy) PT proposing to add: “ When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 [I-D.robles-roll-useofrplinfo] details different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation are required in RPL LLN environments. When using [RFC6282] the outter IP header of an IP-in-IP encapsulation may be compressed down to 2 octets in stateless compression and down to 3 octets in case of a stateful compression when a context information must be added. 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 0 | 1 | 1 | TF |NH | HLIM |CID|SAC| SAM | M |DAC| DAM | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Figure 1: LOWPAN_IPHC base Encoding (RFC6282) The Stateless Compression of an IPv6 addresses can only happen if the IPv6 address can de deduced from the MAC addresses, meaning that the IP end point is also the MAC-layer endpoint. This is generally not the case in a RPL network which is generally a multi-hop route-over (operated at Layer-3) network. A better compression, that does not involve variable compressions depending on the hop in the mesh, can be achieved based on the fact that the outter encapsulation is usually between the source (or destination) of the inner packet and the root. Also, the inner IP header can only be compressed by [RFC6282] if all the fields up to it are also compressed. This specification makes it so that the inner IP header is the first header that is compressed by [RFC6282], and conserves the inner packet encoded the same way whether it is encapsulated or not, conserving existing implementation. “ This specification extends the 6lo adaptation layer framework TW> add references to 4944 and 6282? so as to carry routing information for Route-over TW> what casing is used in 6550 for route over? use cases. The PT > Well RPL => Route Over . What about: “ This specification extends the 6lo adaptation layer framework ([RFC4944],[RFC6282]) so as to carry routing information for route- over networks based on RPL. The specification includes the formats necessary for RPL and is extensible for additional formats. “ Note: This specification does not use the Escape Dispatch, which extends Page 0 to more values, but rather allocates another Dispatch Bit Pattern (1111xxxx) for a new Paging Dispatch, that is present in all Pages, including Page 0 and Pages defined in future specifications, to indicate the next parsing context represented by its Page number. TW> maybe add a sentence which indicates that using the Escape Dispath would add bytes? PT > what about: “ The rationale for avoiding that approach is that there will be multiple occurrences of a new header indexed by this specification in a single frame and the overhead on an octet each time for the Escape Dispatch would be prohibitive. “ 3.1. New Page 1 Paging Dispatch {#Page 1} This draft defines a new Page 1 Paging Dispatch (Dispatch Value of 11110001) which indicates a context switch in the 6LoWPAN parser to a Page 1. The Dispatch bits defined in Page 0 by [RFC4944] are free to be reused in the Pages 1 to 15. On the other hand, the Dispatch bits defined in Page 0 for the Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks [RFC6282] are defined with the same values in Page 1 so there is no need to switch context back from Page 1 to Page 0 to address LOWPAN_IPHC and LOWPAN_NHC. TW> this is unclear. What do you mean by "switch back"? Maybe a couple of examples would help here, or a reference to an Appendix containining such examples. PT: Unsure how I can reword it or what example you are after. What this says is that RFC 6282 applies in the page 1 context just like it does in the page 0 context. The “switch back “ thing is that there is no need to switch to page 0 when you are in page 1 if you are using formats defined in 6282. Any suggestion of improvement(s)? 3.2. New Routing Header Dispatch (6LoRH) This specification introduces a new 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH) to carry IPv6 routing information. The 6LoRH may contain source routing information such as a compressed form of RH3, as well as other sorts of routing information such as the RPL Packet Information and IP-in- IP encapsulation. The 6LoRH is expressed in a 6loWPAN packet as a Type-Length-Value (TLV) field, which is extensible for future use. This specification uses the bit pattern 10xxxxxx in Page 1 for the new 6LoRH Dispatch. TW> I don't see the need for this paragraph. PT the one below I assume? The 6LoRH uses on a 1/4th of the Dispatch space in Page 1, and this specification only uses a limited portion of the TLV space in the 6LoRH to encode RPL artifacts as detailed in Section 5. It is expected that in the future, other specification with extend the 6LoRH for other features related to packet routing and forwarding in 6LoWPAN networks. … 4.2. Placement Of The 6LoRH With this specification, the 6LoRH [Section 5] is only defined in Page 1, so it MUST be placed in the packet in a zone where the Page 1 context is active. One or more 6LoRHs TW> 6LoRH is a not a noun. Please say something like "6LoRH headers" (maybe not the right term?) MAY be placed in a 6LoWPAN packet and MUST always be placed before the LOWPAN_IPHC [RFC6282]. TW> words missing? A 6LoRH being placed in a Page 1 context, it MUST always be placed after any Fragmentation Header and/or Mesh Header [RFC4944], even if a sur-compression mechanism TW> what on Earth is sur-compression? is used that elides the Paging Dispatches. PT> the sur-compression is Jonathan’s idea that I hope we reintroduce at some point. Here is what the section would notw look: “ 4.2. Placement Of The 6LoRH With this specification, the 6LoRH header [Section 5] is only defined in Page 1, so it MUST be placed in the packet in a zone where the Page 1 context is active. One or more 6LoRH header(s) MAY be placed in a 6LoWPAN packet. A 6LoRH header MUST always be placed before the LOWPAN_IPHC as defined in 6LoWPAN Header Compression [RFC6282]. A 6LoRH header being always placed in a Page 1 context, it MUST always be placed after any Fragmentation Header and/or Mesh Header [RFC4944]. “ 5. 6LoWPAN Routing Header General Format TW> why link to Page 0 at all? Why not simply stay "6LoRH uses Dispatch Value Bit Pattern 10xxxxxx in Page 1"? In its canonical form, the 6LoRH reuses in Page 1 the Dispatch Value Bit Pattern of 10xxxxxx that is defined in Page 0 for the Mesh Header in [RFC4944]. PT: This is already gone with draft ietf .. 00 Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 The Dispatch Value Bit Pattern is split in two forms of 6LoRH: Elective (6LoRHE) that may skipped if not understood Critical (6LoRHC) that may not be ignored 5.1. Elective Format TW> "In its canonical form" doesn't mean anything. This is a spec, it's either a format or it's not. This has to do with Jonathan’s sur-compression. I can remove it for now. Note: there is no provision for the exchange of error messages; such a situation should be avoided by judicious use of administrative control and/or capability indications. TW> please add a sentence to indicate why using ICMPv6 here doesn't make sense Pt > what about “ Note: The situation where a node receives a message with a Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header that it does not understand is a critical administrative error whereby the wrong device is placed in a network. It makes no sense to overburden the constrained device with code that would cause ICMP error to the source. Rather, it is expected that the device will raise some management alert indicating that it cannot operate in this network for that reason. It results that there is no provision for the exchange of error messages for this situation; it should be avoided by judicious use of administrative control and/or capability indications by the device manufacturer. “ 6. The Routing Header Type 3 (RH3) 6LoRH The Routing Header type 3 (RH3) 6LoRH (RH3-6LoRH) TW> why not call it 6LoRH-RH3? It's first a 6LoRH, with subtype RH3 PT > Let us place that to the vote. The convention used so far is adjective firs like in ‘blue shirt’. But I do not mind either way. is a Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header that provides a compressed form for the RH3, as defined in [RFC6554] for use by RPL routers. Routers that need to forward a packet with a RH3-6LoRH are expected to be RPL routers and are expected to support this specification. If a non-RPL router receives a packet with a RPI-6LoRH, this means that there was a routing error TW> RPI-6LoRH is not defined at this point? PT > typo, meant RH3… Thanks for the catch! and the packet should be dropped so the Type cannot be ignored. 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- -+- -+ ... +- -+ |1|0|0| Size |6LoRH Type 0..4| Hop1 | Hop2 | | HopN | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- -+- -+ ... +- -+ Size indicates the number of compressed addresses Figure 5: The RH3-6LoRH. The values for the RH3-6LoRH Type are an enumeration, 0 to 4. The form of compression is indicated by the Type as follows: TW> please reference the figures by their number. Pt done Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 +-----------+-----------+ | Type | Size Unit | +-----------+-----------+ | 0 | 1 | | 1 | 2 | | 2 | 4 | | 3 | 8 | | 4 | 16 | +-----------+-----------+ Figure 6: The RH3-6LoRH Types. TW> what does the size unit mean? Is there a paragraph missing here? PT That is the unit in which the size is expressed. I can make that clearer. Proposal: “ The values for the RH3-6LoRH Type are an enumeration, 0 to 4. The form of compression is indicated by the Type. The unit (as a number of bytes) in which the Size is expressed depends on the Type as described in Figure 7: +-----------+-----------+ | Type | Size Unit | +-----------+-----------+ | 0 | 1 | | 1 | 2 | | 2 | 4 | | 3 | 8 | | 4 | 16 | +-----------+-----------+ “ In the case of a RH3-6LoRH, the TSE field is used as a Size, which encodes the number of hops minus 1; so a Size of 0 means one hop, and the maximum that can be encoded is 32 hops. (If more than 32 hops need to be expressed, a sequence of RH3-6LoRH can be employed.) The next Hop TW> please use consistent casing. next hop? Next Hop? is indicated in the first entry of the first RH3-6LoRH. Upon reception, the entry is checked whether it refers to the processing router itself. TW> I don't understand "whether it refers to the processing router itself" What about “ The Next Hop is indicated in the first entry of the first RH3-6LoRH. Upon reception, the router checks whether it owns the address indicated as Next Hop, which MUST be the case in a strict source routing environment. If it is so, the entry is removed from the RH3-6LoRH and the Size is decremented. “ If it so, the entry is removed from the RH3-6LoRH and the Size is decremented. If the Size is now zero, the whole RH3-6LoRH is removed. If there is no more RH3-6LoRH, the processing node is the last router on the way, which may or may not be collocated with the final destination. TW> I have a proposal: why not leave one more address in the source route? this would enable piecewise source routing. Please ping me if you want me to make this suggestion in the ML. PT > Please do. I think that there’s a lot to improve in the RH, like the use of context. We need to discuss that now if we want the next 6TiSCH plugtest to use it – maybe it’s too late for that round? TW> this paragraph contradicts the previous one, which states that the last address in the RH is not per-se the final destination PT> it is the last router which may be the final destination. I see the text can be confusing. What about: “ The last hop in the last RH3-6LoRH is the last router on the way to the destination in the LLN. In a classical RPL network, all nodes are routers so the last hop is effectively the destination as well. But in the general case, even when there is a RH3-6LoRH header present, the address of the final destination is always indicated in the LoWPAN_IPHC [RFC6282]. “ The last hop in the last RH3-6LoRH is the last router prior to the destination in the LLN. So even when there is a RH3-6LoRH in the frame, TW> what do you mean by frame? PT >removed the address of the final destination is in the LoWPAN_IPHC [RFC6282]. If some bits of the first address in the RH3-6LoRH can be derived from the final destination is TW> remove "is"? PT >removed in the LoWPAN_IPHC, then that address may be compressed, otherwise is is expressed in full. TW> full IPv6 I assume? PT >now “otherwise it is expressed as a full IPv6 address of 128 bits “ Next addresses only need to express the delta from the previous address. All addresses in a RH3-6LoRH are compressed in a same fashion, down to the same number of bytes per address. In order to get different forms of compression, multiple consecutive RH3-6LoRH must be used. TW> a couple of example would be very welcome here, or a link to an appendix with examples PT > true, will do that next time 7. The RPL Packet Information 6LoRH [RFC6550], Section 11.2, specifies the RPL Packet Information (RPI) as a set of fields that are to be TW> is that a MUST in 6550? if yes, please write MUST added to the IP packets for the purpose of Instance Identification, as well as Loop Avoidance and Detection. PT RPL says “ A RPL router that forwards a packet in the RPL network MUST check if the packet includes the RPL Packet Information. If not, then the RPL router MUST insert the RPL Packet Information. “ But then it is up to RPL to specify the MUST and RPL may change and that’s fine for the 6LoRH internet draft. This doc just says how to compress RPI if it is present. I would not place a MUST that does not belong here. In particular, the SenderRank, which is the scalar metric computed by an specialized Objective Function such as [RFC6552], indicates the Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 Rank of the sender and is modified at each hop. The SenderRank field is used to validate that the packet progresses in the expected direction, either upwards or downwards, along the DODAG. RPL defines the RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams [RFC6553] to transport the RPI, which is carried in an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header [RFC2460], typically consuming eight bytes per packet. With [RFC6553], the RPL option is encoded as six Octets; it must be placed in a Hop-by-Hop header that consumes two additional octets for a total of eight. TW> a couple of examples here might be beneficial, as I'm confused by the 8, 2 and 6 numbers Well noted, though it is paraphrasing other specs. I’ll keep it as a todo with all the other formats you’re suggesting to add In order to limit its range to the inside the RPL domain, the Hop-by-Hop header must be added to (or removed from) packets that cross the border of the RPL domain. The 8-byte overhead is detrimental to the LLN operation, in particular with regards to bandwidth and battery constraints. These bytes may cause a containing frame to grow above maximum frame size, leading to Layer 2 or 6LoWPAN [RFC4944] fragmentation, which in turn causes even more energy spending and issues discussed in the LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery [I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments]. An additional overhead comes from the need, in certain cases, to add an IP-in-IP encapsulation to carry the Hop-by-Hop header. This is needed when the router that inserts the Hop-by-Hop header is not the source of the packet, so that an error can be returned to the router. This is also the case when a packet originated by a RPL node must be stripped from the Hop-by-Hop header to be routed outside the RPL domain. This specification defines an IPinIP-6LoRH in Section 8 for that purpose, but it must be noted that stripping a 6LoRH does not require a manipulation of the packet in the LOWPAN_IPHC, and thus, if the source address in the LOWPAN_IPHC is the node that inserted the IPinIP-6LoRH then this alone does not mandate an IPinIP-6LoRH. As a result, a RPL packet may bear only an RPI-6LoRH and no IPinIP- 6LoRH. In that case, the source and destination of the packet are located in the LOWPAN_IPHC. TW> examples examples! PT > well noted! As with [RFC6553], the fields in the RPI include an 'O', an 'R', and an 'F' bit, an 8-bit RPLInstanceID (with some internal structure), and a 16-bit SenderRank. The remainder of this section defines the RPI-6LoRH, a Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header that is designed to transport the RPI in 6LoWPAN LLNs. Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 7.1. Compressing the RPLInstanceID RPL Instances are discussed in [RFC6550], Section 5. A number of simple use cases do not require more than one instance, and in such cases, the instance is expected to be the global Instance 0. A global RPLInstanceID is encoded in a RPLInstanceID field as follows: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| ID | Global RPLInstanceID in 0..127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: RPLInstanceID Field Format for Global Instances. For the particular case of the global Instance 0, the RPLInstanceID field is all zeros. This specification allows to elide a RPLInstanceID field that is all zeros, and defines a I flag that, when set, signals that the field is elided. 7.2. Compressing the SenderRank The SenderRank is the result of the DAGRank operation on the rank of the sender; here the DAGRank operation is defined in [RFC6550], Section 3.5.1, as: DAGRank(rank) = floor(rank/MinHopRankIncrease) If MinHopRankIncrease is set to a multiple of 256, the least significant 8 bits of the SenderRank will be all zeroes; by eliding those, the SenderRank can be compressed into a single byte. This idea is used in [RFC6550] by defining DEFAULT_MIN_HOP_RANK_INCREASE as 256 and in [RFC6552] that defaults MinHopRankIncrease to DEFAULT_MIN_HOP_RANK_INCREASE. This specification allows to encode the SenderRank as either one or two bytes, and defines a K flag that, when set, signals that a single byte is used. 7.3. The Overall RPI-6LoRH encoding The RPI-6LoRH provides a compressed form for the RPL RPI. Routers that need to forward a packet with a RPI-6LoRH are expected to be RPL routers and expected to support this specification. If a non-RPL router receives a packet with a RPI-6LoRH, this means that there was a routing error and the packet should be dropped so the Type cannot be ignored. Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 Since the I flag is not set, the TSE field does not need to be a length expressed in bytes. The field is fully reused for control bits so as to encode the O, R and F flags from the RPI, and the I and K flags that indicate the compression that is taking place. The Type for the RPI-6LoRH is 5. The RPI-6LoRH is immediately followed by the RPLInstanceID field, unless that field is fully elided, and then the SenderRank, which is either compressed into one byte or fully in-lined as the whole 2 bytes. The I and K flags in the RPI-6LoRH indicate whether the RPLInstanceID is elided and/or the SenderRank is compressed and depending on these bits, the Length of the RPI-6LoRH may vary as described hereafter. 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+ |1|0|0|O|R|F|I|K| 6LoRH Type=5 | Compressed fields | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+ Figure 8: The Generic RPI-6LoRH Format. O, R, and F bits: The O, R, and F bits as defined in [RFC6550], Section 11.2. I bit: If it is set, the Instance ID is elided and the RPLInstanceID is the Global RPLInstanceID 0. If it is not set, the octet immediately following the type field contains the RPLInstanceID as specified in [RFC6550] section 5.1. K bit: If it is set, the SenderRank is be compressed into one octet, and the lowest significant octet is elided. If it is not set, the SenderRank, is fully inlined as 2 octets. In Figure 9, the RPLInstanceID is the Global RPLInstanceID 0, and the MinHopRankIncrease is a multiple of 256 so the least significant byte is all zeros and can be elided: Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1|0|0|O|R|F|1|1| 6LoRH Type=5 | SenderRank | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I=1, K=1 Figure 9: The most compressed RPI-6LoRH. In Figure 10, the RPLInstanceID is the Global RPLInstanceID 0, but both bytes of the SenderRank are significant so it can not be compressed: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1|0|0|O|R|F|1|0| 6LoRH Type=5 | SenderRank | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I=1, K=0 Figure 10: Eliding the RPLInstanceID. In Figure 11, the RPLInstanceID is not the Global RPLInstanceID 0, and the MinHopRankIncrease is a multiple of 256: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1|0|0|O|R|F|0|1| 6LoRH Type=5 | RPLInstanceID | SenderRank | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I=0, K=1 Figure 11: Compressing SenderRank. In Figure 12, the RPLInstanceID is not the Global RPLInstanceID 0, and both bytes of the SenderRank are significant: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1|0|0|O|R|F|0|0| 6LoRH Type=5 | RPLInstanceID | Sender-... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...-Rank | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I=0, K=0 Figure 12: Least compressed form of RPI-6LoRH. Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 TW> why not put this intro at the beginning of Section 8? A typical packet in RPL non-storing mode going down the RPL graph requires an IPinIP encapsulating the RH3, whereas the RPI is usually omitted, unless it is important to indicate the RPLInstanceID. To match this structure, an optimized IPinIP 6LoRH is defined in Section 8. PT > moved TW> I don't understand what this table is... PT > Gone! And the types include the setting of I and K as follows: +-----------+-------+-------+ | Type | I | K | +-----------+-------+-------+ | 5 | 0 | 0 | | 6 | 0 | 1 | | 7 | 1 | 0 | | 8 | 1 | 1 | +-----------+-------+-------+ Figure 13: The RPI-6LoRH Types. 8. The IP-in-IP 6LoRH The IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IPinIP-6LoRH) is an Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header that provides a compressed form for the encapsulating IPv6 Header in the case of an IP-in-IP encapsulation. An IPinIP encapsulation is used to insert a field such as a Routing Header or an RPI at a router that is not the source of the packet. In order to send an error back regarding the inserted field, the address of the router that performs the insertion must be provided. The encapsulation can also enable a router down the path removing a field such as the RPI, but this can be done in the compressed form by removing the RPI-6LoRH, so an IPinIP-6LoRH encapsulation is not required for that sole purpose. TW> I thought I understood IP-in-IP was needed as well for RPL upstream traffic? PT > it is, yes. Why does it seem otherwise? Does this look better: “ The encapsulation can also enable the last router prior to Destination to remove a field such as the RPI, but this can be done in the compressed form by removing the RPI-6LoRH, so an IP-in-IP-6LoRH encapsulation is not required for that sole purpose. “ This field is not critical for routing so the Type can be ignored, and the TSE field contains the Length in bytes. 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ... -+ |1|0|1| Length | 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | Encaps. Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ... -+ Figure 14: The IPinIP-6LoRH. Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 The Length of an IPinIP-6LoRH is expressed in bytes and MUST be at least 1, to indicate a Hop Limit (HL), that is decremented at each hop. When the HL reaches 0, the packet is dropped per [RFC2460] If the Length of an IPinIP-6LoRH is exactly 1, then the Encapsulator Address is elided, which means that the Encapsulator is a well-known router, for instance the root in a RPL graph. If the Length of an IPinIP-6LoRH is strictly more than 1, then an Encapsulator Address is placed in a compressed form after the Hop Limit field. The value of the Length indicates which compression is performed on the Encapsulator Address. For instance, a Size of 3 indicates that the Encapsulator Address is compressed to 2 bytes. When it cannot be elided, the destination IP address of the IP-in-IP header is transported in a RH3-6LoRH as the first address of the list. With RPL, the destination address in the IP-in-IP header is implicitly the root in the RPL graph for packets going upwards, and the destination address in the IPHC for packets going downwards. If the implicit value is correct, the destination IP address of the IP- in-IP encapsulation can be elided. If the final destination of the packet is a leaf that does not support this specification, then the chain of 6LoRH must be stripped by the RPL/6LR router to which the leaf is attached. In that example, the destination IP address of the IP-in-IP header cannot be elided. In the special case where the 6LoRH is used to route 6LoWPAN fragments, the destination address is not accessible in the IPHC on all fragments and can be elided only for the first fragment and for packets going upwards. TW> I understand the discussion above, but I don't see from the IPinIP- 6LoRH TW> format how you can carry both the Encapsulator address and the destination address Pt > you do not. The format implies that the root is one of the end points of the tunnel. If the source is the root then the destination is in the inner IP. Else the source is the encapsulator that must be signaled in which case the destination is the root. 9. Security Considerations The security considerations of [RFC4944], [RFC6282], and [RFC6553] apply. Using a compressed format as opposed to the full in-line format is logically equivalent and does not create an opening for a new threat when compared to [RFC6550], [RFC6553] and [RFC6554]. Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 10. IANA Considerations This document creates a IANA registry for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type, and assigns the following values: 0..4 : RH3-6LoRH [RFCthis] 5 : RPI-6LoRH [RFCthis] 6 : IPinIP-6LoRH [RFCthis] 11. Acknowledgments TW> If you like my review, consider adding me to this list. It usual also to order people alphabetically You are certainly added! The alphabet order I usually do not do. List is plain random order. But if it’s important to you I can reorder.. The authors wish to thank Martin Turon, James Woodyatt, Samita Chakrabarti, Jonathan Hui, Gabriel Montenegro and Ralph Droms for constructive reviews to the design in the 6lo Working Group. The overall discussion involved participants to the 6MAN, 6TiSCH and ROLL WGs, thank you all. Special thanks to the chairs of the ROLL WG, Michael Richardson and Ines Robles, and Brian Haberman, Internet Area A-D, and Adrian Farrel, Routing Area A-D, for driving this complex effort across Working Groups and Areas. 12. References 12.1. Normative References [IEEE802154] IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std. 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks", 2015. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>. Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>. [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>. [RFC6552] Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC6552, March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6552>. [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>. [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>. [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>. [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>. 12.2. Informative References [I-D.bergmann-bier-ccast] Bergmann, O., Bormann, C., and S. Gerdes, "Constrained- Cast: Source-Routed Multicast for RPL", draft-bergmann- bier-ccast-00 (work in progress), November 2014. Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-08 (work in progress), May 2015. [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch] Watteyne, T., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using IEEE802.15.4e TSCH in an IoT context: Overview, Problem Statement and Goals", draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-06 (work in progress), March 2015. [I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments] Thubert, P. and J. Hui, "LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery", draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-02 (work in progress), November 2014. [I-D.wijnands-bier-architecture] Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit Replication", draft-wijnands-bier-architecture-05 (work in progress), March 2015. [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>. Authors' Addresses Pascal Thubert (editor) Cisco Systems Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille Batiment T3 Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 FRANCE Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34 Email: pthubert@cisco.com Thubert, et al. Expires June 6, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches December 2015 Carsten Bormann Universitaet Bremen TZI Postfach 330440 Bremen D-28359 Germany Phone: +49-421-218-63921 Email: cabo@tzi.org Laurent Toutain Institut MINES TELECOM; TELECOM Bretagne 2 rue de la Chataigneraie CS 17607 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex 35576 France Email: Laurent.Toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu Robert Cragie ARM Ltd. 110 Fulbourn Road Cambridge CB1 9NJ UK Email: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com -- --------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: pthubert@cisco.com | Owner: pthubert@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: routing-dispatch | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | --------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lo/trac/ticket/6#comment:2> 6lo <https://tools.ietf.org/6lo/>
- [6lo] #6 (routing-dispatch): Thomas Watteyne revi… 6lo issue tracker
- Re: [6lo] #6 (routing-dispatch): Thomas Watteyne … 6lo issue tracker
- Re: [6lo] #6 (routing-dispatch): Thomas Watteyne … 6lo issue tracker
- Re: [6lo] #6 (routing-dispatch): Thomas Watteyne … 6lo issue tracker