[Roll] Last call to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16
Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Wed, 04 September 2019 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0DB120100 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
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 QfdV5IEdyClT for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (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 D51F0120116 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id g207so3443418wmg.5 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=968eLaztDchjpSCa2L9f0aVBErRoSFgYtQDDDK/+yFs=; b=gzfWO7zquMR8sP1tLaGlxNIJ33r5g7jnHKR7MI3mfhg65mSW3rmHEsRFm/i8kotRTj b8hutq6q2WuQPWe7G5x6djY5avIUj7MujNLF0HIX2a2jdmoGgISUT6izjPjWBTaDeEnU kn1oY/Uuf9WkztxltPTpQChJAu+vHOO5M16UnDPxtfQpRIfAsLIOCLtITOdld9sCDCIJ UHkfZGqOlaBFx8qODpTV16i9A7Q5KooOrUIGTZePbjNwcwFVxswCCeRg9ftK5nW71JFu ksozYs2Ws4xy7c73rNdztvGhqbzS+sST4UonRXmqIjKHfEygxzZSd90IrXvDmEv1x6N6 4WAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=968eLaztDchjpSCa2L9f0aVBErRoSFgYtQDDDK/+yFs=; b=dYsYEEEdesG55iK75eQXOdb12mCGk5skPi0AJKfajs7yMOSqm7fs9UZQS9/di4yVMK SSoXj209tNXxrVWAqpwWparlcJ/dhUZWqGeSIbBBT7/THBoUzciHrej0bYVp9q891WlU Uj4L6XtTfmm9POsYef/PyKc82qxdKZEqmjfA1iiT8ZSfnFEosiUkTr4HKtojzO1R7ip7 /1DfDZHAFHd0PZ4ybYqfgZdj1UuttvG3epd0fIUi7nnL2IQdU/HlAGvxoU3vqREI0JZ0 VmiwhhAfqNpYBSn4d8yl5KIGtfT9rk2bgrq5iV4HjadnrNSjjthxcUwnFeD40pLUOIk6 lcKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW74WSgJQJ5pVoH4xy5zw6v0unzjZEkENYECMyapqoVgLljONLz tOiq9uJR1LzvJK9u3tFWMjRHsrc+CvXusIrGYhXnAYDF
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxRVqMbIcr6/2Fg6/MqMcp3HIRkvUbZJx2+7HYQLdmXXXyRP8XMsu8dMxYltiZSS/6ZSWafSPOOYHfR5P1jr18=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7513:: with SMTP id o19mr4422292wmc.126.1567605767002; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB3565DAEEF4DD78D732EDE17DD8B80@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565DAEEF4DD78D732EDE17DD8B80@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 17:02:35 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUeEWC-bhw2U0t82-45ha3vOEcuqiD9U4Hmc-xR=y6PM6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3dee00591baa852"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/zhkJiPRrhLm1qfk71j6G6ei3EN8>
Subject: [Roll] Last call to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:02:53 -0000
Dear all, This is a last call for the modified NPDAO document (version 16) that you can find here https://github.com/pthubert/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao.txt This call is open until 23th September. Please let us know your opinion. Thank you very much in advance, Ines and Peter. On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > Dear all > > > > We are holding NP DAO for a change that does not impact the behavior of > the node but improves traceability. > > I would like to confirm consensus on this change rapidly so we can give > the doc back to RFC editor. > > > > The proposed change is as follows: > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > diff --git > "a/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-15.xml" > "b/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16.xml" > > index 8a0acca..2ed0920 100644 > > --- > "a/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-15.xml" > > +++ > "b/C:\\Users\\pthubert\\Dropbox\\IETF\\doc\\rpi\\draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16.xml" > > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ > > <?rfc subcompact="yes" ?> > > <!-- keep one blank line between list items --> > > <!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions --> > > -<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-15" > ipr="trust200902"> > > +<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-16" > ipr="trust200902"> > > <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic > > ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667 > > you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" > > @@ -582,11 +582,12 @@ > > > > <t> > > This document specifies a change in the Transit > Information Option to > > - contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag. This > I-flag signals > > + contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag. This > 'I' flag signals > > the common ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf of > the > > - target node. The I-flag is carried in the Transit > Information > > + target node with a RPL Status of 130 indicating that the > address > > + has moved. The 'I' flag is carried in the Transit > Information > > Option which augments the reachability information for a > given > > - set of RPL Target(s). Transit Information Option with > I-flag > > + set of RPL Target(s). Transit Information Option with 'I' > flag > > set should be carried in the DAO message when route > > invalidation is sought for the corresponding target(s). > > </t> > > @@ -615,8 +616,8 @@ > > </t> > > <t> > > The common ancestor node SHOULD generate a DCO message in > > - response to this I-flag when it sees that the routing > > - adjacencies have changed for the target. The I-flag is > > + response to this 'I' flag when it sees that the routing > > + adjacencies have changed for the target. The 'I' flag is > > intended to give the target node control over its own > route > > invalidation, serving as a signal to request DCO > generation. > > </t> > > @@ -638,7 +639,7 @@ > > 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 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > -| RPLInstanceID |K|D| Flags | Reserved | DCOSequence | > > +| RPLInstanceID |K|D| Flags | RPL Status | DCOSequence | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > + + > > @@ -683,8 +684,15 @@ > > the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. > > </t> > > <t> > > - Reserved: 8-bit unused field. The field MUST be > initialized to > > - zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. > > + RPL Status: The RPL Status as defined in section 6.5.1 of > <xref > > + target="RFC6550"/>. > > + Indicative of the reason why the DCO happened, the RPL > Status > > + MUST NOT be changed as the DCO is propagated down the > route > > + being invalidated. > > + This value is informative and does not affect the > behavior of > > + the receiver. In particular, unknown values are ignored > by the > > + receiver. > > + Only Rejection Codes (value above 128) are expected in a > DCO. > > </t> > > <t> > > DCOSequence: 8-bit field incremented at each unique DCO > message > > @@ -759,7 +767,7 @@ > > 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 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > -| RPLInstanceID |D| Flags | DCOSequence | Status | > > +| RPLInstanceID |D| Flags | DCOSequence | DCO-ACK Status| > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > + + > > @@ -788,8 +796,10 @@ > > copied from the DCOSequence received in the DCO > message. > > </t> > > <t> > > - Status: Indicates the completion. Status 0 is defined > as > > - unqualified acceptance in this specification. Status > 1 is > > + DCO-ACK Status: Indicates the completion. A value of > 0 is > > + defined as > > + unqualified acceptance in this specification. A value > of 1 > > + is > > defined as "No routing-entry for the Target found". > The > > remaining status values are reserved as rejection > codes. > > </t> > > @@ -910,7 +920,7 @@ > > nodes will generate their respective DAOs to update > their > > paths, and the previous route invalidation for those > nodes > > should work in the similar manner described for > switching > > - node. The dependent node may set the I-flag in the > Transit > > + node. The dependent node may set the 'I' flag in the > Transit > > Information Option as part of regular DAO so as to > > request invalidation of previous route from the common > > ancestor node. > > @@ -920,7 +930,7 @@ > > of their parents in turn have decided to switch their > > parent. Thus for route invalidation the dependent > nodes may > > choose to always set the 'I' flag in all its DAO > message's > > - Transit Information Option. Note that setting the > I-flag is > > + Transit Information Option. Note that setting the 'I' > flag is > > not counterproductive even if there is no previous > > route to be invalidated. > > </t> > > @@ -1103,7 +1113,7 @@ > > > > <t> > > IANA is requested to allocate bit 1 from the Transit > Information > > - Option Flags registry for the I-flag (<xref > target="transit_opt_changes"/>) > > + Option Flags registry for the 'I' flag (<xref > target="transit_opt_changes"/>) > > </t> > > <section title="New Registry for the Destination Cleanup Object > (DCO) Flags"> > > <t> > > @@ -1210,22 +1220,29 @@ > > This document introduces the ability for a common ancestor > node to > > invalidate a route on behalf of the target node. The common > > ancestor node could be directed to do so by the target node > using > > - the I-flag in DCO's Transit Information Option. However, the > common > > + the 'I' flag in DCO's Transit Information Option. However, > the common > > ancestor node is in a position to unilaterally initiate the > route > > invalidation since it possesses all the required state > information, > > namely, the Target address and the corresponding Path > Sequence. > > Thus a rogue common ancestor node could initiate such an > > invalidation and impact the traffic to the target node. > > </t> > > + <t> The DCO carries a RPL Status value, which is informative. New > Status > > + values may be created over time and a node will ignore an > unknown > > + Status value. Which makes it so that the RPL Status field may > be > > + used as a cover channel. But the channel only works once > since the > > + message destroys its own medium, that is the existing route > that it > > + is removing. > > + </t> > > <t> > > - This document also introduces an I-flag which is set by the > target > > + This document also introduces an 'I' flag which is set by the > target > > node and used by the ancestor node to initiate a DCO if the > > ancestor sees an update in the route adjacency. However, > > this flag could be spoofed by a malicious 6LR in the path and > can > > cause invalidation of an existing active path. Note that > invalidation > > will happen only if the other conditions such as Path Sequence > > condition is also met. Having said that, such a malicious 6LR > may > > - spoof a DAO on behalf of the (sub) child with the I-flag set > and > > + spoof a DAO on behalf of the (sub) child with the 'I' flag > set and > > can cause route invalidation on behalf of the (sub) child > node. > > Note that, using existing mechanisms offered by <xref > > target="RFC6550"/>, a malicious 6LR might also spoof a > DAO with > > > > > > Chairs, could we please last call or whatever so we can move on? > > > > Many thanks! > > > > Pascal > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >
- [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor Ines Robles
- [Roll] Last call to draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npd… Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] Last call to draft-ietf-roll-efficient… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Last call to draft-ietf-roll-efficient… Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Last call to draft-ietf-roll-efficient… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] giving back MPDAO to RFC editor Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] Last call to draft-ietf-roll-efficient… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] Last call to draft-ietf-roll-efficient… Ines Robles