6lo Working Group | M. Richardson |
Internet-Draft | Sandelman Software Works |
Intended status: Informational | October 18, 2016 |
Expires: April 21, 2017 |
802.15.4 Informational Element encapsulation of ICMPv6 Router Advertisements
draft-richardson-6lo-ra-in-ie-00
In TSCH mode of 802.15.4, as described by [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal], opportunities for broadcasts are limited to specific times and specific channels. An enhanced beacon must be broadcast periodically by every router to keep all nodes in sync. This document provides a mechanism by which other small ICMPv6 packets, such as Router Advertisements may be carried within the Enhanced Beacon, providing standard IPv6 router/host protocol.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] describes the use of the time-slotted channel hopping (TSCH) mode of [ieee802154]. As further details in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal], an Extended Beacon is transmitted during a slot designated a broadcast slot.
EDNOTE: Explain why broadcasts are rare, and why we need them. What the Enhanced Beacon is, and what Information Elements are, and how the IETF has a subtype for that area. Explain what kind of things could be placed in Information Elements, how big they could be, and how they could be compressed.
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant STuPiD implementations.
As explained in section 6 of [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal], the Extended Beacon has a number of purposes: synchronization of ASN and Join Metric, timeslot template identifier, the channel hopping sequence identifier, TSCH SlotFrame and Link IE.
The Extended Beacon is used by operating nodes to correct drift to their clock, by nodes on medium length sleeps to resynchronize their ASN, by nodes that have slept through a network rekey to rediscover the network, and by new Joining Nodes (pledges) to learn about the existance of the network.
There are a limited number of timeslots designated as a broadcast slot by each router. These slots are rare, and with 10ms slots, with a slot-frame length of 100, there may be only 1 slot/s for the beacon.
At layer 3, [RFC2461] defines a mechanism by which nodes learn about routers by listening for multicasted Router Advertisements (RA). If no RA is heard within a set time, then a Router Solicitation (RS) may be multicast, to which an RA will be received, usually unicast.
Although [RFC6775] reduces the amount of multicast necessary to do address resolution via Neighbor Solicitation messages, it still requires multicast of either RAs or RS. This is an expensive operation for two reasons: there are few multicast timeslots for unsolicited RAs; if a pledge node does not hear an RA, and decides to send a RS (consuming a broadcast aloha slot with unencrypted traffic), many unicast RS may be sent in response.
This is a particularly acute issue for the join process for the following reasons:
[I-D.kivinen-802-15-ie] creates a registry for new IETF IE subtypes. This document allocates a new subtype TBD-XXX.
The base IE subtype structure is as follows. As explained in [I-D.kivinen-802-15-ie] the length of the Sub-Type Content can be calculated.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TBD-XXX | 6LoRH encoded structure | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ~ Sub-Type Content ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Inside the Sub-Type content should be placed compressed packets according to [RFC6282] (as updated by [I-D.ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry].
Typically a Router Advertisement will be placed inside the Sub-Type. The entire structure typically looks like:
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Ver 6 | TC = 0 | Flow Label = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Payload Length | NH = 58 | Hop Lmt = 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Source Address + | fe80::LL | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Destination Address + | fe02::1 | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 134 | Code = 0 | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | HL = 0 |0|0| Reserved | Router lifetime = 9000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reachable Time = 0 XXX | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Retrans Timer = 0 XXX | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 1 | Len = 10 | EUI-64 of router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------+ + | EUI-64 of router | + +---------------+---------------+ | EUI-64 of router | Type = TBD-YYY| Len = 18 | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | DODAGID | + | | | + | | | + | | | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
When compressed by [RFC6282], this becomes:
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ | 0 | 1 | 1 |TF= 11 |NH |HLIM=01|CID|SAC| SAM | M |DAC| DAM | 0 + | | | | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 1 + 1 + 0 + 1 1 + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | NH = 0x58 | dstXX = 0x01 | 4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 134 | Code = 0 | Checksum | 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | HL = 0 |0|0| Reserved | Router lifetime = 9000 | 12 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reachable Time = 0 XXX | 16 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Retrans Timer = 0 XXX | 20 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 1 | Len = 10 | EUI-64 of router | 24 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------+ + | EUI-64 of router | 28 + +---------------+---------------+ | EUI-64 of router | Type = TBD-YYY| Len = 18 | 32 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | DODAGID | 36 + | | | 40 + | | | 44 + | | | 48 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
The total number of bytes needed is 56 bytes.
TBD.
Allocate a new number TBD-XXX from Registry IETF IE Sub-type ID. This entry should be called 6LoRH-in-IE.
Allocate a new number TBD-YYY from Neighbor Discovery Option Types (RFC2461) with the name "Constrained Network Identification".
[RFC2460] | Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, December 1998. |
[RFC4191] | Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191, November 2005. |
[RFC4443] | Conta, A., Deering, S. and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006. |
[RFC4655] | Farrel, A., Vasseur, J. and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006. |
[RFC4861] | Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W. and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007. |
[RFC7554] | Watteyne, T., Palattella, M. and L. Grieco, "Using IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554, DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015. |
insert appendix here