Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update
draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update
6lo P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Updates: 6775 (if approved) E. Nordmark
Intended status: Standards Track Zededa
Expires: December 21, 2018 S. Chakrabarti
Verizon
C. Perkins
Futurewei
June 19, 2018
Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery
draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-21
Abstract
This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery, to
clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique,
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.
Status of This Memo
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 https://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 December 21, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
(https://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Acronym Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Applicability of Address Registration Options . . . . . . . . 6
4. Extended Neighbor Discovery Options and Messages . . . . . . 7
4.1. Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Extended Duplicate Address Message Formats . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Extensions to the Capability Indication Option . . . . . 12
5. Updating RFC 6775 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Extending the Address Registration Option . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Transaction ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2.1. Comparing TID values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Extended Duplicate Address Messages . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. Registering the Target Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.6. Link-Local Addresses and Registration . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.7. Maintaining the Registration States . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1. Signaling EARO Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2. RFC6775-only 6LN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3. RFC6775-only 6LR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.4. RFC6775-only 6LBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.1. ARO Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.2. EARO I-Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.3. ICMP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.4. New ARO Status values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.5. New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11.2. Terminology Related References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.3. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
11.4. External Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A. Applicability and Requirements Served (Not
Normative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B. Requirements (Not Normative) . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.1. Requirements Related to Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.2. Requirements Related to Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . 38
B.3. Requirements Related to the Variety of Low-Power Link
types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B.4. Requirements Related to Proxy Operations . . . . . . . . 40
B.5. Requirements Related to Security . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.6. Requirements Related to Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.7. Requirements Related to Operations and Management . . . . 42
B.8. Matching Requirements with Specifications . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1. Introduction
IPv6 Low-Power Lossy Networks (LLNs) support star and mesh
topologies. For such networks, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for
IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks" (6LoWPAN ND)
[RFC6775] defines a registration mechanism and a central IPv6 ND
Registrar to assure unique addresses. The 6LoWPAN ND mechanism
reduces the dependency of the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol (IPv6
ND) [RFC4861][RFC4862] on network-layer multicast and link-layer
broadcast operations.
This specification updates 6LoWPAN ND to simplify and generalizes
registration in 6LoWPAN routers (6LRs). In particular, this
specification modifies and extends the behavior and protocol elements
of 6LoWPAN ND to enable the following actions:
o Determine the most recent location in case of node mobility
o Simplify the registration flow for Link-Local Addresses
o Support a routing-unaware Leaf Node in a Route-Over network
o Proxy registration in a Route-Over network
o Enable verification for the registration, using the Registration
Ownership Verifier (ROVR)
o Registration to an IPv6 ND proxy (e.g., a Routing Registrar)
o Better support for privacy and temporary addresses
These features satisfy requirements as listed in Appendix B.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
2. Terminology
2.1. BCP 14
The 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 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. References
In this document, readers will encounter terms and concepts that are
discussed in the following documents:
o "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC4861],
o "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862],
o "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals" [RFC4919],
o "Problem Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing" [RFC6606], and
o "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks"
[RFC6775],
2.3. Acronym Definitions
This document uses the following acronyms:
6BBR: 6LoWPAN Backbone Router
6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router
6LN: 6LoWPAN Node
6LR: 6LoWPAN Router
6CIO: Capability Indication Option
EARO: (Extended) Address Registration Option -- (E)ARO
EDAR: (Extended) Duplicate Address Request -- (E)DAR
EDAC: (Extended) Duplicate Address Confirmation -- (E)DAC
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
DAD: Duplicate Address Detection
DODAG: Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph
LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network
NA: Neighbor Advertisement
NCE: Neighbor Cache Entry
ND: Neighbor Discovery
NDP: Neighbor Discovery Protocol
NS: Neighbor Solicitation
ROVR: Registration Ownership Verifier (pronounced rover)
RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for LLNs (pronounced ripple) [RFC6550]
RA: Router Advertisement
RS: Router Solicitation
TID: Transaction ID (a sequence counter in the EARO)
2.4. New Terms
Backbone Link: An IPv6 transit link that interconnects two or more
Backbone Routers.
Binding: The association between an IP address, a MAC address, and
other information about the node that owns the IP Address.
Registration: The process by which a 6LN registers an IPv6 Address
with a 6LR in order to establish connectivity to the LLN.
Registered Node: The 6LN for which the registration is performed,
according to the fields in the Extended ARO option.
Registering Node: The node that performs the registration; either
the Registered Node or a proxy.
IPv6 ND Registrar: A node that can process a registration in either
NS(EARO) or EDAR messages, and consequently respond with an NA
or EDAC message containing the EARO and appropriate status for
the registration.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
Registered Address: An address registered for the Registered Node.
RFC6775-only: An implementation, a type of node, or a message that
behaves only as specified by [RFC6775], as opposed to the
behavior specified in this document.
Route-Over network: A network for which connectivity provided at the
IP layer.
Routing Registrar: An IPv6 ND Registrar that also provides
reachability services for the Registered Address, including
Duplicate Address Detection and proxy Neighbor Advertisement.
Backbone Router (6BBR): A Routing Registrar that proxies the 6LoWPAN
ND operations specified in this document to assure that
multiple LLNs federated by a backbone link operate as a single
IPv6 subnetwork.
updated: A 6LN, a 6LR, or a 6LBR that supports this specification,
in contrast to an RFC6775-only device.
3. Applicability of Address Registration Options
The Address Registration Option (ARO) in [RFC6775] facilitates
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for hosts and populates Neighbor
Cache Entries (NCEs) [RFC4861] in the routers. This reduces the
reliance on multicast operations, which are often as intrusive as
broadcast, in IPv6 ND operations (see
[I-D.ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems]).
This document specifies new status codes for registrations rejected
by a 6LR or a 6LBR for reasons other than address duplication.
Examples include:
o the router running out of space;
o a registration bearing a stale sequence number which could happen
if the host moves after the registration was placed;
o a host misbehaving and attempting to register an invalid address
such as the unspecified address [RFC4291];
o a host using an address that is not topologically correct on that
link.
In such cases the host will receive an error to help diagnose the
issue and may retry, possibly with a different address, and possibly
registering to a different router, depending on the returned error.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
The ability to return errors to address registrations is not intended
to be used to restrict the ability of hosts to form and use multiple
addresses. Each host may form and register a number of addresses for
enhanced privacy, using mechanisms such as "Privacy Extensions for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) in IPv6" [RFC4941], and
SHOULD conform to "Host Address Availability Recommendations"
[RFC7934].
In IPv6 ND [RFC4861], a router needs enough storage to hold NCEs for
all directly connected addresses to which it is currently forwarding
packets (unused entries may be flushed). In contrast, a router
serving the Address Registration mechanism needs enough storage to
hold NCEs for all the addresses that may be registered to it,
regardless of whether or not they are actively communicating. The
number of registrations supported by a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR) or
6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR) MUST be clearly documented by the vendor
and the dynamic use of associated resources SHOULD be made available
to the network operator, e.g., to a management console. Network
administrators need to ensure that 6LR/6LBRs in their network support
the number and type of devices that can register to them, based on
the number of IPv6 addresses that those devices require and their
address renewal rate and behavior.
4. Extended Neighbor Discovery Options and Messages
This specification does not introduce new options; it modifies
existing options and updates the associated behaviors.
4.1. Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)
The Address Registration Option (ARO) is defined in section 4.1 of
[RFC6775].
This specification introduces the Extended Address Registration
Option (EARO) based on the ARO for use in NS and NA messages. The
EARO includes a sequence counter called Transaction ID (TID) that is
used to determine the latest location of a registering mobile device.
A new 'T' flag indicates the presence of the TID field is populated
and that the option is an EARO. A 6LN requests routing or proxy
services from a 6LR using a new 'R' flag in the EARO.
The EUI-64 field is redefined and renamed ROVR in order to carry
different types of information, e.g., cryptographic information of
variable size. A larger ROVR size MAY be used if and only if
backward compatibility is not an issue in the particular LLN. The
length of the ROVR field expressed in units of 8 bytes is the Length
of the option minus 1.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
Section 5.1 discusses those changes in depth.
The format of the EARO is shown in Figure 1:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Status | Opaque |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd | I |R|T| TID | Registration Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
... Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) ...
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: EARO Option Format
Option Fields:
Type: 33
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option in
units of 8 bytes.
Status: 8-bit unsigned integer. Indicates the status of a
registration in the NA response. MUST be set to 0 in
NS messages. See Table 1 below.
Opaque: An octet opaque to ND; the 6LN MAY pass it
transparently to another process. It MUST be set to
zero when not used.
Rsvd (Reserved): This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to
zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
I: Two-bit Integer: A value of zero indicates that the
Opaque field carries an abstract index that is used
to decide in which routing topology the address is
expected to be injected. In that case, the Opaque
field is passed to a routing process with the
indication that it carries topology information, and
the value of 0 indicates default. All other values
of "I" are reserved and MUST NOT be used.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
R: The Registering Node sets the 'R' flag to request
reachability services for the registered address from
a Routing Registrar.
T: One-bit flag. Set if the next octet is used as a
TID.
TID: One-byte unsigned integer; a Transaction ID that is
maintained by the node and incremented with each
transaction of one or more registrations performed at
the same time to one or more 6LRs. This field MUST
be ignored if the 'T' flag is not set.
Registration Lifetime: 16-bit integer; expressed in minutes. A
value of 0 indicates that the registration has ended
and that the associated state MUST be removed.
Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR): Enables the correlation
between multiple attempts to register a same IPv6
Address. The ROVR size MUST be 64 bits when backward
compatibility is needed; otherwise the size MAY be
128, 192, or 256 bits.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
+-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Value | Description |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 0..2 | As defined in [RFC6775]. Note: a Status of 1 ("Duplicate |
| | Address") applies to the Registered Address. If the |
| | Source Address conflicts with an existing registration, |
| | "Duplicate Source Address" MUST be used. |
| | |
| 3 | Moved: The registration failed because it is not the most |
| | recent. This Status indicates that the registration is |
| | rejected because another more recent registration was |
| | done, as indicated by a same ROVR and a more recent TID. |
| | One possible cause is a stale registration that has |
| | progressed slowly in the network and was passed by a more |
| | recent one. It could also indicate a ROVR collision. |
| | |
| 4 | Removed: The binding state was removed. This status MAY |
| | be placed in an NA(EARO) message that is sent as the |
| | rejection of a proxy registration to an IPv6 ND |
| | Registrar, or in an asynchronous NA(EARO) at any time. |
| | |
| 5 | Validation Requested: The Registering Node is challenged |
| | for owning the Registered Address or for being an |
| | acceptable proxy for the registration. An IPv6 ND |
| | Registrar MAY place this Status in asynchronous DAC or NA |
| | messages. |
| | |
| 6 | Duplicate Source Address: The address used as source of |
| | the NS(EARO) conflicts with an existing registration. |
| | |
| 7 | Invalid Source Address: The address used as source of the |
| | NS(EARO) is not a Link-Local Address. |
| | |
| 8 | Registered Address topologically incorrect: The address |
| | being registered is not usable on this link. |
| | |
| 9 | 6LBR Registry saturated: A new registration cannot be |
| | accepted because the 6LBR Registry is saturated. Note: |
| | this code is used by 6LBRs instead of Status 2 when |
| | responding to a Duplicate Address message exchange and is |
| | passed on to the Registering Node by the 6LR. |
| | |
| 10 | Validation Failed: The proof of ownership of the |
| | registered address is not correct. |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: EARO Status
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
4.2. Extended Duplicate Address Message Formats
The DAR and DAC messages share a common base format as defined in
section 4.4 of [RFC6775]. Those messages enable information from the
ARO to be transported over multiple hops. The DAR and DAC are
extended as shown in Figure 2:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |CodePfx|CodeSfx| Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status | TID | Registration Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
... Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) ...
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Registered Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Duplicate Address Messages Format
Modified Message Fields:
Code: The ICMP Code [RFC4443] for Duplicate Address
Messages is split in two 4-bit fields, the Code
Prefix and the Code Suffix. The Code Prefix MUST be
set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
receiver. A non-null value of the Code Suffix
indicates support for this specification. It MUST be
set to 1 when operating in a backward-compatible
mode, indicating a ROVR size of 64 bits. It MAY be
2, 3 or 4, denoting a ROVR size of 128, 192, and 256
bits, respectively.
TID: 1-byte integer; same definition and processing as the
TID in the EARO as defined in Section 4.1. This
field MUST be ignored if the ICMP Code is null.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR): The size of the ROVR is
known from the ICMP Code Suffix. This field has the
same definition and processing as the ROVR in the
EARO option as defined in Section 4.1.
4.3. Extensions to the Capability Indication Option
This specification defines 5 new capability bits for use in the 6CIO,
defined by [RFC7400] for use in IPv6 ND messages.
The "E" flag indicates that EARO can be used in a registration. A
6LR that supports this specification MUST set the "E" flag.
The "D" flag indicates that the 6LBR supports EDAR and EDAC messages.
A 6LR that learns the "D" flag from advertisements can then exchange
EDAR and EDAC messages with the 6LBR, and it also sets the "D" flag
as well as the "L" flag in the 6CIO in its own advertisements. In
this way, 6LNs will be able to prefer registration with a 6LR that
can make use of new 6LBR features.
The new "L", "B", and "P" flags, indicate whether a router is capable
of acting as 6LR, 6LBR, and Routing Registrar (e.g., 6BBR),
respectively. These flags are not mutually exclusive; an updated
node can advertise multiple collocated functions.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length = 1 | Reserved |D|L|B|P|E|G|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: New Capability Bits in the 6CIO
Option Fields:
Type: 36
L: Node is a 6LR.
B: Node is a 6LBR.
P: Node is a Routing Registrar.
E: Node is an IPv6 ND Registrar -- i.e., it supports registrations
based on EARO.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
D: 6LBR supports EDAR and EDAC messages.
5. Updating RFC 6775
The Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) (see Section 4.1)
updates the ARO used within NS and NA messages between a 6LN and a
6LR. The update enables a registration to a Routing Registrar in
order to obtain additional services, such as return routability to
the Registered Address by such means as routing and/or proxy Neighbor
Discovery, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Routing
6LN Registrar
| |
| NS(EARO) |
|--------------->|
| |
| | Inject / Maintain
| | Host Route or
| | IPv6 ND proxy state
| | <----------------->
| NA(EARO) |
|<---------------|
| |
Figure 4: (Re-)Registration Flow
Similarly, EDAR and EDAC update the DAR and DAC messages so as to
transport the new information between 6LRs and 6LBRs across an LLN
mesh. The extensions to the ARO option are the Duplicate Address
Request (DAR) and Duplicate Address Confirmation (DAC), used in the
Duplicate Address messages. They convey the additional information
all the way to the 6LBR.
In turn the 6LBR may proxy the registration to obtain reachability
services from a Routing Registrar such as a 6BBR, as illustrated in
Figure 5. This specification avoids the Duplicate Address message
flow for Link-Local Addresses in a Route-Over [RFC6606] topology (see
Section 5.6).
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
Routing
6LN 6LR 6LBR Registrar
| | | |
|<Link-local>| <Routed> |<Link-local>|
| | | |
| NS(EARO) | | |
|----------->| | |
| | Extended DAR | |
| |------------->| |
| | | proxy |
| | | NS(EARO) |
| | |----------->|
| | | | Inject / maintain
| | | | Host Route or
| | | | IPv6 ND proxy state
| | | | <----------------->
| | | proxy |
| | | NA(EARO) |
| | Extended DAC |<-----------|
| |<-------------| |
| NA(EARO) | | |
|<-----------| | |
| | | |
Figure 5: (Re-)Registration Flow
This specification allows multiple registrations, including for
privacy / temporary addresses and provides a mechanism to help clean
up stale registration state as soon as possible, e.g., after a
movement (see Section 7).
Section 5 of [RFC6775] specifies how a 6LN bootstraps an interface
and locates available 6LRs. A Registering Node SHOULD register to a
6LR that supports this specification if one is found, as discussed in
Section 6.1, instead of registering to an RFC6775-only one; otherwise
the Registering Node operates in a backward-compatible fashion when
attaching to an RFC6775-only 6LR.
5.1. Extending the Address Registration Option
The Extended ARO (EARO) updates the ARO and is backward compatible
with the ARO if and only if the Length of the option is set to 2.
Its format is presented in Section 4.1. More details on backward
compatibility can be found in Section 6.
The Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and the ARO are modified as follows:
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
o The Target Address in the NS containing the EARO is now the field
that indicates the address that is being registered, as opposed to
the Source Address field as specified in [RFC6775] (see
Section 5.5). This change enables a 6LBR to send a proxy
registration for a 6LN's address to a Routing Registrar, and also
avoids in most cases the use of an address as source address
before it is registered.
o The EUI-64 field in the ARO Option is renamed Registration
Ownership Verifier (ROVR) and is not required to be derived from a
MAC address (see Section 5.3).
o The option Length MAY be different than 2 and take a value between
3 and 5, in which case the EARO is not backward compatible with an
ARO. The increase of size corresponds to a larger ROVR field, so
the size of the ROVR is inferred from the option Length.
o A new Opaque field is introduced to carry opaque information in
case the registration is relayed to another process, e.g., to be
advertised by a routing protocol. A new "I" field provides a type
for the opaque information, and indicates the other process to
which the 6LN passes the opaque value. A value of Zero for I
indicates topological information to be passed to a routing
process if the registration is redistributed. In that case, a
value of Zero for the Opaque field is backward-compatible with the
reserved fields that are overloaded, and the meaning is to use the
default topology.
o This document specifies a new flag in the EARO, the 'R' flag. If
the 'R' flag is set, the Registering Node requests the 6LR to
ensure reachability for the Registered Address, e.g., by means of
routing or proxying ND. Conversely, when it is not set, the 'R'
flag indicates that the Registering Node is a router, and that it
will advertise reachability to the Registered Address via a
routing protocol (such as RPL [RFC6550]).
o A node that supports this specification MUST be provide a
Transaction ID (TID) field in the EARO, and set the 'T' flag to
indicate the presence of the TID (see Section 5.2).
o Finally, this specification introduces new status codes to help
diagnose the cause of a registration failure (see Table 1).
A 6LN that acts only as a host, when registering, MUST set the 'R'
flag to indicate that it is not a router and that it will not handle
its own reachability. A 6LR that manages its reachability SHOULD NOT
set the 'R' flag; if it does, routes towards this router may be
installed on its behalf and may interfere with those it advertises.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
5.2. Transaction ID
The TID is a sequence number that is incremented by the 6LN with each
re-registration to a 6LR. The TID is used to determine the recency
of the registration request. The network uses the most recent TID to
determine the most recent known location(s) of a moving 6LN. When a
Registered Node is registered with multiple 6LRs in parallel, the
same TID MUST be used. This enables the 6LBRs and/or Routing
Registrars to determine whether the registrations are identical, and
to distinguish that situation from a movement (for example, see
Appendix A and Section 5.7).
5.2.1. Comparing TID values
The operation of the TID is fully compatible with that of the RPL
Path Sequence counter as described in the "Sequence Counter
Operation" section of the "IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks" [RFC6550] specification.
A TID is deemed to be more recent than another when its value is
greater as determined by the operations detailed in this section.
The TID range is subdivided in a 'lollipop' fashion ([Perlman83]),
where the values from 128 and greater are used as a linear sequence
to indicate a restart and bootstrap the counter, and the values less
than or equal to 127 used as a circular sequence number space of size
128 as in [RFC1982]. Consideration is given to the mode of operation
when transitioning from the linear region to the circular region.
Finally, when operating in the circular region, if sequence numbers
are determined to be too far apart then they are not comparable, as
detailed below.
A window of comparison, SEQUENCE_WINDOW = 16, is configured based on
a value of 2^N, where N is defined to be 4 in this specification.
For a given sequence counter,
1. The sequence counter SHOULD be initialized to an implementation
defined value which is 128 or greater prior to use. A
recommended value is 240 (256 - SEQUENCE_WINDOW).
2. When a sequence counter increment would cause the sequence
counter to increment beyond its maximum value, the sequence
counter MUST wrap back to zero. When incrementing a sequence
counter greater than or equal to 128, the maximum value is 255.
When incrementing a sequence counter less than 128, the maximum
value is 127.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
3. When comparing two sequence counters, the following rules MUST be
applied:
1. When a first sequence counter A is in the interval [128..255]
and a second sequence counter B is in [0..127]:
1. If (256 + B - A) is less than or equal to
SEQUENCE_WINDOW, then B is greater than A, A is less than
B, and the two are not equal.
2. If (256 + B - A) is greater than SEQUENCE_WINDOW, then A
is greater than B, B is less than A, and the two are not
equal.
For example, if A is 240, and B is 5, then (256 + 5 - 240) is
21. 21 is greater than SEQUENCE_WINDOW (16), thus 240 is
greater than 5. As another example, if A is 250 and B is 5,
then (256 + 5 - 250) is 11. 11 is less than SEQUENCE_WINDOW
(16), thus 250 is less than 5.
2. In the case where both sequence counters to be compared are
less than or equal to 127, and in the case where both
sequence counters to be compared are greater than or equal to
128:
1. If the absolute magnitude of difference between the two
sequence counters is less than or equal to
SEQUENCE_WINDOW, then a comparison as described in
[RFC1982] is used to determine the relationships greater
than, less than, and equal.
2. If the absolute magnitude of difference of the two
sequence counters is greater than SEQUENCE_WINDOW, then a
desynchronization has occurred and the two sequence
numbers are not comparable.
4. If two sequence numbers are determined to be not comparable,
i.e., the results of the comparison are not defined, then a node
should give precedence to the sequence number that was most
recently incremented. Failing this, the node should select the
sequence number in order to minimize the resulting changes to its
own state.
5.3. Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR)
The ROVR field replaces the EUI-64 field of the ARO defined in
[RFC6775]. It is associated in the 6LR and the 6LBR with the
registration state. The ROVR can be a unique ID of the Registering
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
Node, such as the EUI-64 address of an interface. This can also be a
token obtained with cryptographic methods which can be used in
additional protocol exchanges to associate a cryptographic identity
(key) with this registration to ensure that only the owner can modify
it later, if the proof-of-ownership of the ROVR can be obtained (more
in Section 5.6). The scope of a ROVR is the registration of a
particular IPv6 Address and it MUST NOT be used to correlate
registrations of different addresses.
The ROVR can be of different types; the type is signaled in the
message that carries the new type. For instance, the type can be a
cryptographic string and used to prove the ownership of the
registration as specified in "Address Protected Neighbor Discovery
for Low-power and Lossy Networks" [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd]. In order to
support the flows related to the proof-of-ownership, this
specification introduces new status codes "Validation Requested" and
"Validation Failed" in the EARO.
Note on ROVR collision: different techniques for forming the ROVR
will operate in different name-spaces. [RFC6775] operates on EUI-
64(TM) addresses. [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] generates cryptographic
tokens. While collisions are not expected in the EUI-64 name-space
only, they may happen in the case of [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] and in a
mixed situation. An implementation that understands the name-space
MUST consider that ROVRs from different name-spaces are different
even if they have the same value. An RFC6775-only 6LR or 6LBR will
confuse the name-spaces, which slightly increases the risk of a ROVR
collision. A collision of ROVR has no effect if the two Registering
Nodes register different addresses, since the ROVR is only
significant within the context of one registration. A ROVR is not
expected to be unique to one registration, as this specification
allows a node to use the same ROVR to register multiple IPv6
addresses. This is why the ROVR MUST NOT be used as a key to
identify the Registering Node, or as an index to the registration.
It is only used as a match to ensure that the node that updates a
registration for an IPv6 address is the node that made the original
registration for that IPv6 address. Also, when the ROVR is not an
EUI-64 address, then it MUST NOT be used as the interface ID of the
Registered Address. This way, a registration that uses that ROVR
will not collide with that of an IPv6 Address derived from EUI-64 and
using the EUI-64 as ROVR per [RFC6775].
The Registering Node SHOULD store the ROVR, or enough information to
regenerate it, in persistent memory. If this is not done and an
event such as a reboot causes a loss of state, re-registering the
same address could be impossible until the 6LRs and the 6LBR time out
the previous registration, or a management action is taken to clear
the relevant state in the network.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
5.4. Extended Duplicate Address Messages
In order to map the new EARO content in the Extended Duplicate
Address (EDA) messages, a new TID field is added to the Extended DAR
(EDAR) and the Extended DAC (EDAC) messages as a replacement of the
Reserved field, and a non-null value of the ICMP Code indicates
support for this specification. The format of the EDAR and EDAC
messages is presented in Section 4.2.
As with the EARO, the Extended Duplicate Address messages are
backward compatible with the RFC6775-only versions as long as the
ROVR field is 64 bits long. Remarks concerning backwards
compatibility for the protocol between the 6LN and the 6LR apply
similarly between a 6LR and a 6LBR.
5.5. Registering the Target Address
An NS message with an EARO is a registration if and only if it also
carries an SLLA Option [RFC6775]. The EARO can also be used in NS
and NA messages between Routing Registrars to determine the
distributed registration state; in that case, it does not carry the
SLLA Option and is not confused with a registration.
The Registering Node is the node that performs the registration to
the Routing Registrar. As in [RFC6775], it may be the Registered
Node as well, in which case it registers one of its own addresses and
indicates its own MAC Address as Source Link Layer Address (SLLA) in
the NS(EARO).
This specification adds the capability to proxy the registration
operation on behalf of a Registered Node that is reachable over an
LLN mesh. In that case, if the Registered Node is reachable from the
Routing Registrar via a Mesh-Under mesh, the Registering Node
indicates the MAC Address of the Registered Node as the SLLA in the
NS(EARO). If the Registered Node is reachable over a Route-Over mesh
from the Registering Node, the SLLA in the NS(ARO) is that of the
Registering Node. This enables the Registering Node to attract the
packets from the Routing Registrar and route them over the LLN to the
Registered Node.
In order to enable the latter operation, this specification changes
the behavior of the 6LN and the 6LR so that the Registered Address is
found in the Target Address field of the NS and NA messages as
opposed to the Source Address field. With this convention, a TLLA
option indicates the link-layer address of the 6LN that owns the
address.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
A Registering Node (e.g., a 6LBR also acting as RPL Root) that
advertises reachability for the 6LN MUST place its own Link Layer
Address in the SLLA Option of the registration NS(EARO) message.
This maintains compatibility with RFC6775-only 6LoWPAN ND [RFC6775].
5.6. Link-Local Addresses and Registration
LLN nodes are often not wired and may move. There is no guarantee
that a Link-Local Address remain unique among a huge and potentially
variable set of neighboring nodes.
Compared to [RFC6775], this specification only requires that a Link-
Local Address be unique from the perspective of the two nodes that
use it to communicate (e.g., the 6LN and the 6LR in an NS/NA
exchange). This simplifies the DAD process in a Route-Over topology
for Link-Local Addresses by avoiding an exchange of EDA messages
between the 6LR and a 6LBR for those addresses.
An exchange between two nodes using Link-Local Addresses implies that
they are reachable over one hop. A node MUST register a Link-Local
Address to a 6LR in order to obtain further reachability by way of
that 6LR, and in particular to use the Link-Local Address as source
address to register other addresses, e.g., global addresses.
If there is no collision with a previously registered address, then
the Link-Local Address is unique from the standpoint of this 6LR and
the registration is not a duplicate. Two different 6LRs might claim
the same Link-Local Address but different link-layer addresses. In
that case, a 6LN MUST only interact with at most one of the 6LRs.
The exchange of EDAR and EDAC messages between the 6LR and a 6LBR,
which ensures that an address is unique across the domain covered by
the 6LBR, does not need to take place for Link-Local Addresses.
When sending an NS(EARO) to a 6LR, a 6LN MUST use a Link-Local
Address as the source address of the registration, whatever the type
of IPv6 address that is being registered. That Link-Local Address
MUST be either an address that is already registered to the 6LR, or
the address that is being registered.
When a 6LN starts up, it typically multicasts a RS and receives one
or more unicast RA messages from 6LRs. If the 6LR can process EARO
messages, then it places a 6CIO in its RA message with the "E" Flag
set as required in Section 6.1.
When a Registering Node does not have an already-registered Address,
it MUST register a Link-Local Address, using it as both the Source
and the Target Address of an NS(EARO) message. In that case, it is
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
RECOMMENDED to use an address for which DAD is not required (see
[RFC6775]), e.g., derived from a globally unique EUI-64 address;
using the SLLA Option in the NS is consistent with existing ND
specifications such as the "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection
(ODAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429]. The 6LN MAY then use that address to
register one or more other addresses.
A 6LR that supports this specification replies with an NA(EARO),
setting the appropriate status. Since there is no exchange of EDAR
or EDAC messages for Link-Local Addresses, the 6LR may answer
immediately to the registration of a Link-Local Address, based solely
on its existing state and the Source Link-Layer Option that is placed
in the NS(EARO) message as required in [RFC6775].
A node registers its IPv6 Global Unicast Addresses (GUAs) to a 6LR in
order to establish global reachability for these addresses via that
6LR. When registering with an updated 6LR, a Registering Node does
not use a GUA as Source Address, in contrast to a node that complies
to [RFC6775]. For non-Link-Local Addresses, the exchange of EDAR and
EDAC messages MUST conform to [RFC6775], but the extended formats
described in this specification for the DAR and the DAC are used to
relay the extended information in the case of an EARO.
5.7. Maintaining the Registration States
This section discusses protocol actions that involve the Registering
Node, the 6LR, and the 6LBR. It must be noted that the portion that
deals with a 6LBR only applies to those addresses that are registered
to it; as discussed in Section 5.6, this is not the case for Link-
Local Addresses. The registration state includes all data that is
stored in the router relative to that registration, in particular,
but not limited to, an NCE. 6LBRs and Routing Registrars may store
additional registration information and use synchronization protocols
that are out of scope of this document.
A 6LR cannot accept a new registration when its registration storage
space is exhausted. In that situation, the EARO is returned in an NA
message with a Status Code of "Neighbor Cache Full" (Table 1), and
the Registering Node may attempt to register to another 6LR.
If the registry in the 6LBR is full, then the 6LBR cannot decide
whether a registration for a new address is a duplicate. In that
case, the 6LBR replies to an EDAR message with an EDAC message that
carries a new Status Code indicating "6LBR Registry Saturated"
(Table 1). Note: this code is used by 6LBRs instead of "Neighbor
Cache Full" when responding to a Duplicate Address message exchange
and is passed on to the Registering Node by the 6LR. There is no
point for the node to retry this registration via another 6LR, since
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
the problem is network-wide. The node may either abandon that
address, de-register other addresses first to make room, or keep the
address in TENTATIVE state and retry later.
A node renews an existing registration by sending a new NS(EARO)
message for the Registered Address, and the 6LR MUST report the new
registration to the 6LBR.
A node that ceases to use an address SHOULD attempt to de-register
that address from all the 6LRs to which it has registered the
address. This is achieved using an NS(EARO) message with a
Registration Lifetime of 0. If this is not done, the associated
state will remain in the network till the current Registration
Lifetime expires and this may lead to a situation where the 6LR
resources become saturated, even if they are correctly planned to
start with. The 6LR may then take defensive measures that may
prevent this node or some other nodes from owning as many addresses
as they request (see Section 7).
A node that moves away from a particular 6LR SHOULD attempt to de-
register all of its addresses registered to that 6LR and register to
a new 6LR with an incremented TID. When/if the node appears
elsewhere, an asynchronous NA(EARO) or EDAC message with a Status
Code of "Moved" SHOULD be used to clean up the state in the previous
location. The "Moved" status can be used by a Routing Registrar in
an NA(EARO) message to indicate that the ownership of the proxy state
was transferred to another Routing Registrar due to movement of the
device. If the receiver of the message has registration state
corresponding to the related address, it SHOULD propagate the status
down the forwarding path to the Registered Node (e.g., reversing an
existing RPL [RFC6550] path as prescribed in
[I-D.ietf-roll-efficient-npdao]). Whether it could do so or not, the
receiver MUST clean up said state.
Upon receiving an NS(EARO) message with a Registration Lifetime of 0
and determining that this EARO is the most recent for a given NCE
(see Section 5.2), a 6LR cleans up its NCE. If the address was
registered to the 6LBR, then the 6LR MUST report to the 6LBR, through
a Duplicate Address exchange with the 6LBR, indicating the null
Registration Lifetime and the latest TID that this 6LR is aware of.
Upon receiving the EDAR message, the 6LBR evaluates if this is the
most recent TID it has received for that particular registry entry.
If so, then the EDAR is answered with an EDAC message bearing a
Status of "Success" and the entry is scheduled to be removed.
Otherwise, a Status Code of "Moved" is returned instead, and the
existing entry is maintained.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
When an address is scheduled to be removed, the 6LBR SHOULD keep its
NCE in a DELAY state [RFC4861] for a configurable period of time, so
as to protect a mobile node that de-registered from one 6LR and did
not register yet to a new one, or the new registration did not yet
reach the 6LBR due to propagation delays in the network. Once the
DELAY time is passed, the 6LBR silently removes its entry.
6. Backward Compatibility
This specification changes the behavior of the peers in a
registration flow. To enable backward compatibility, a 6LN that
registers to a 6LR that is not known to support this specification
MUST behave in a manner that is backward-compatible with [RFC6775].
On the contrary, if the 6LR is found to support this specification,
then the 6LN MUST conform to this specification when communicating
with that 6LR.
A 6LN that supports this specification MUST always use an EARO as a
replacement for an ARO in its registration to a router. This is
backward-compatible since the 'T' flag and TID field are reserved in
[RFC6775], and are ignored by an RFC6775-only router. A router that
supports this specification MUST answer an NS(ARO) and an NS(EARO)
with an NA(EARO). A router that does not support this specification
will consider the ROVR as an EUI-64 address and treat it the same,
which has no consequence if the Registered Addresses are different.
6.1. Signaling EARO Support
"Generic Header Compression for IPv6 over 6LoWPANs" [RFC7400]
specifies the 6LoWPAN Capability Indication Option (6CIO) to indicate
a node's capabilities to its peers. The 6CIO MUST be present in both
Router Solicitation (RS) and Router Advertisement (RA) messages,
unless the 6CIO information was already shared in recent exchanges,
or pre-configured in all nodes in a network. In any case, a 6CIO
MUST be placed in an RA message that is sent in response to an RS
with a 6CIO.
Section 4.3 defines a new flag for the 6CIO to signal support for
EARO by the issuer of the message. New flags are also added to the
6CIO to signal the sender's capability to act as a 6LR, 6LBR, and
Routing Registrar (see Section 4.3).
Section 4.3 also defines a new flag that indicates the support of
EDAR and EDAC messages by the 6LBR. This flag is valid in RA
messages but not in RS messages. More information on the 6LBR is
found in a separate Authoritative Border Router Option (ABRO). The
ABRO is placed in RA messages as prescribed by [RFC6775]; in
particular, it MUST be placed in an RA message that is sent in
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
response to an RS with a 6CIO indicating the capability to act as a
6LR, since the RA propagates information between routers.
6.2. RFC6775-only 6LN
An RFC6775-only 6LN will use the Registered Address as the source
address of the NS message and will not use an EARO. An updated 6LR
MUST accept that registration if it is valid per [RFC6775], and it
MUST manage the binding cache accordingly. The updated 6LR MUST then
use the RFC6775-only DAR and DAC messages as specified in [RFC6775]
to indicate to the 6LBR that the TID is not present in the messages.
The main difference from [RFC6775] is that the exchange of DAR and
DAC messages for the purpose of DAD is avoided for Link-Local
Addresses. In any case, the 6LR MUST use an EARO in the reply, and
can use any of the Status codes defined in this specification.
6.3. RFC6775-only 6LR
An updated 6LN discovers the capabilities of the 6LR in the 6CIO in
RA messages from that 6LR; if the 6CIO was not present in the RA,
then the 6LR is assumed to be a RFC6775-only 6LR.
An updated 6LN MUST use an EARO in the request regardless of the type
of 6LR, RFC6775-only or updated, which implies that the 'T' flag is
set. It MUST use a ROVR of 64 bits if the 6LR is an RFC6775-only
6LR.
If an updated 6LN moves from an updated 6LR to an RFC6775-only 6LR,
the RFC6775-only 6LR will send an RFC6775-only DAR message, which
cannot be compared with an updated one for recency. Allowing
RFC6775-only DAR messages to update a state established by the
updated protocol in the 6LBR would be an attack vector and that
cannot be the default behavior. But if RFC6775-only and updated 6LRs
coexist temporarily in a network, then it makes sense for an
administrator to install a policy that allows this, using some method
out of scope for this document.
6.4. RFC6775-only 6LBR
With this specification, the Duplicate Address messages are extended
to transport the EARO information. As with the NS/NA exchange, an
updated 6LBR MUST always use the EDAR and EDAC messages.
Note that an RFC6775-only 6LBR will accept and process an EDAR
message as if it were an RFC6775-only DAR, as long as the ROVR is 64
bits long. An updated 6LR discovers the capabilities of the 6LBR in
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
the 6CIO in RA messages from the 6LR; if the 6CIO was not present in
any RA, then the 6LBR is assumed to be a RFC6775-only 6LBR.
If the 6LBR is RFC6775-only, the 6LR MUST use only the 64 leftmost
bits of the ROVR, and place the result in the EDAR message to
maintain compatibility. This way, the support of DAD is preserved.
7. Security Considerations
This specification extends [RFC6775], and the security section of
that document also applies to this document. In particular, the link
layer SHOULD be sufficiently protected to prevent rogue access.
[RFC6775] does not protect the content of its messages and expects a
lower layer encryption to defeat potential attacks. This
specification requires the LLN MAC to provide secure unicast to/from
a Routing Registrar and secure Broadcast or Multicast from the
Routing Registrar in a way that prevents tampering with or replaying
the Neighbor Discovery messages.
This specification recommends using privacy techniques (see
Section 8), and protecting against address theft by methods outside
the scope of this document. As an example, "Address Protected
Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks"
[I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] guarantees the ownership of the Registered
Address using a cryptographic ROVR.
The registration mechanism may be used by a rogue node to attack the
6LR or the 6LBR with a Denial-of-Service attack against the registry.
It may also happen that the registry of a 6LR or a 6LBR is saturated
and cannot take any more registrations, which effectively denies the
requesting node the capability to use a new address. In order to
alleviate those concerns, Section 5.7 provides a number of
recommendations that ensure that a stale registration is removed as
soon as possible from the 6LR and 6LBR. In particular, this
specification recommends that:
o A node that ceases to use an address SHOULD attempt to de-register
that address from all the 6LRs to which it is registered. See
Section 5.2 for the mechanism to avoid replay attacks and avoiding
the use of stale registration information.
o The Registration lifetimes SHOULD be individually configurable for
each address or group of addresses. The nodes SHOULD be
configured with a Registration Lifetime that reflects their
expectation of how long they will use the address with the 6LR to
which it is registered. In particular, use cases that involve
mobility or rapid address changes SHOULD use lifetimes that are
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
larger yet of a same order as the duration of the expectation of
presence.
o The router (6LR or 6LBR) SHOULD be configurable so as to limit the
number of addresses that can be registered by a single node, but
as a protective measure only. In any case, a router MUST be able
to keep a minimum number of addresses per node. That minimum
depends on the type of device and ranges between 3 for a very
constrained LLN and 10 for a larger device. A node may be
identified by its MAC address, as long as it is not obfuscated by
privacy measures. A stronger identification (e.g., by security
credentials) is RECOMMENDED. When the maximum is reached, the
router SHOULD use a Least-Recently-Used (LRU) algorithm to clean
up the addresses, keeping at least one Link-Local Address. The
router SHOULD attempt to keep one or more stable addresses if
stability can be determined, e.g., because they are used over a
much longer time span than other (privacy, shorter-lived)
addresses.
o In order to avoid denial of registration for the lack of
resources, administrators should take great care to deploy
adequate numbers of 6LRs to cover the needs of the nodes in their
range, so as to avoid a situation of starving nodes. It is
expected that the 6LBR that serves an LLN is a more capable node
than the average 6LR, but in a network condition where it may
become saturated, a particular LLN should distribute the 6LBR
functionality, for instance by leveraging a high speed Backbone
Link and Routing Registrars to aggregate multiple LLNs into a
larger subnet.
The LLN nodes depend on a 6LBR and may use the services of a routing
Registrar for their operation. A trust model MUST be put in place to
ensure that only authorized devices are acting in these roles so as
to avoid threats such as black-holing or bombing attack whereby an
impersonated 6LBR would destroy state in the network by using the
"Removed" Status code. This trust model could be at a minimum based
on a Layer-2 access control, or could provide role validation as well
(see Req5.1 in Appendix B.5).
8. Privacy Considerations
As indicated in Section 3, this protocol does not limit the number of
IPv6 addresses that each device can form. However, to mitigate
denial-of-service attacks, it can be useful as a protective measure
to have a limit that is high enough not to interfere with the normal
behavior of devices in the network. A host should be able to form
and register any address that is topologically correct in the
subnet(s) advertised by the 6LR/6LBR.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
This specification does not mandate any particular way for forming
IPv6 addresses, but it discourages using EUI-64 for forming the
Interface ID in the Link-Local Address because this method prevents
the usage of "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)" [RFC3971],
"Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)" [RFC3972], and other
address privacy techniques.
"Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation-Layer Mechanisms"
[RFC8065] explains why privacy is important and how to form privacy-
aware addresses. All implementations and deployments must consider
the option of privacy addresses in their own environments.
The IPv6 address of the 6LN in the IPv6 header can be compressed
statelessly when the Interface Identifier in the IPv6 address can be
derived from the Lower Layer address. When it is not critical to
benefit from that compression, e.g., the address can be compressed
statefully, or it is rarely used and/or it is used only over one hop,
then privacy concerns should be considered. In particular, new
implementations should follow the IETF "Recommendation on Stable IPv6
Interface Identifiers" [RFC8064]. [RFC8064] recommends the use of "A
Method for Generating Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)" [RFC7217] for
generating Interface Identifiers to be used in SLAAC.
9. IANA Considerations
Note to RFC Editor, to be removed: please replace "This RFC"
throughout this document by the RFC number for this specification
once it is allocated.
IANA is requested to make a number of changes under the "Internet
Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" registry, as
follows.
9.1. ARO Flags
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry for "ARO Flags" under
the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) [RFC4443]
Parameters".
This specification defines 8 positions, bit 0 to bit 7, and assigns
bit 6 for the 'R' flag and bit 7 for the 'T' flag (see Section 4.1).
The policy is "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" [RFC8126].
The initial content of the registry is as shown in Table 2.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
+-------------+--------------+-----------+
| ARO Status | Description | Document |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+
| 0..5 | Unassigned | |
| | | |
| 6 | 'R' Flag | This RFC |
| | | |
| 7 | 'T' Flag | This RFC |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+
Table 2: New ARO Flags
9.2. EARO I-Field
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry for "ARO Flags" under
the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) [RFC4443]
Parameters".
This specification defines 4 integer values from 0 to 3, and assigns
value 0 (see Section 4.1). The policy is "IETF Review" or "IESG
Approval" [RFC8126].
The initial content of the registry is as shown in Table 3.
+--------+---------------------------------------+------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+--------+---------------------------------------+------------+
| 0 | Abstract Index for Topology Selection | This RFC |
| | | |
| 1..3 | Unassigned | |
+--------+---------------------------------------+------------+
Table 3: New subregistry for the EARO "I" Field
9.3. ICMP Codes
IANA is requested to create 2 new subregistries of the ICMPv6 "Code"
Fields registry, which itself is a subregistry of the Internet
Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters for the ICMP
codes.
The new subregistries relate to the ICMP type 157, Duplicate Address
Request (shown in Table 4), and 158, Duplicate Address Confirmation
(shown in Table 5), respectively. For those two ICMP types, the ICMP
Code field is split into 2 subfields, the "Code Prefix" and the "Code
Suffix". The new subregistries relate to the "Code Suffix" portion
of the ICMP Code. The range of "Code Suffix" is 0..15 in all cases.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
The policy is "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" [RFC8126] for both
subregistries.
The new subregistries are to be initialized as follows:
+--------------+--------------------------------------+------------+
| Code Suffix | Meaning | Reference |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+------------+
| 0 | RFC6775 DAR message | RFC 6775 |
| | | |
| 1 | EDAR message with 64-bit ROVR field | This RFC |
| | | |
| 2 | EDAR message with 128-bit ROVR field | This RFC |
| | | |
| 3 | EDAR message with 192-bit ROVR field | This RFC |
| | | |
| 4 | EDAR message with 256-bit ROVR field | This RFC |
| | | |
| 5...15 | Unassigned | |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+------------+
Table 4: New Code Suffixes for ICMP type 157 DAR message
+--------------+--------------------------------------+------------+
| Code Suffix | Meaning | Reference |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+------------+
| 0 | RFC6775 DAC message | RFC 6775 |
| | | |
| 1 | EDAC message with 64-bit ROVR field | This RFC |
| | | |
| 2 | EDAC message with 128-bit ROVR field | This RFC |
| | | |
| 3 | EDAC message with 192-bit ROVR field | This RFC |
| | | |
| 4 | EDAC message with 256-bit ROVR field | This RFC |
| | | |
| 5...15 | Unassigned | |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+------------+
Table 5: New Code Suffixes for ICMP type 158 DAC message
9.4. New ARO Status values
IANA is requested to make additions to the Address Registration
Option Status Values Registry as follows:
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
| ARO Status | Description | Document |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 3 | Moved | This RFC |
| | | |
| 4 | Removed | This RFC |
| | | |
| 5 | Validation Requested | This RFC |
| | | |
| 6 | Duplicate Source Address | This RFC |
| | | |
| 7 | Invalid Source Address | This RFC |
| | | |
| 8 | Registered Address topologically | This RFC |
| | incorrect | |
| | | |
| 9 | 6LBR Registry saturated | This RFC |
| | | |
| 10 | Validation Failed | This RFC |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 6: New ARO Status values
9.5. New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits
IANA is requested to make additions to the Subregistry for "6LoWPAN
Capability Bits" as follows:
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| Capability Bit | Description | Document |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 10 | EDA Support (D bit) | This RFC |
| | | |
| 11 | 6LR capable (L bit) | This RFC |
| | | |
| 12 | 6LBR capable (B bit) | This RFC |
| | | |
| 13 | Routing Registrar (P bit) | This RFC |
| | | |
| 14 | EARO support (E bit) | This RFC |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 7: New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
10. Acknowledgments
Kudos to Eric Levy-Abegnoli who designed the First Hop Security
infrastructure upon which the first backbone router was implemented.
Many thanks to Sedat Gormus, Rahul Jadhav, Tim Chown, Juergen
Schoenwaelder, Chris Lonvick, Dave Thaler, Adrian Farrel, Peter Yee,
Warren Kumari, Benjamin Kaduk, Mirja Kuhlewind, Ben Campbell, Eric
Rescorla, and Lorenzo Colitti for their various contributions and
reviews. Also, many thanks to Thomas Watteyne for the world first
implementation of a 6LN that was instrumental to the early tests of
the 6LR, 6LBR and Backbone Router.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC7400] Bormann, C., "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression for
IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks
(6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, DOI 10.17487/RFC7400, November
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7400>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Terminology Related References
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
[RFC6606] Kim, E., Kaspar, D., Gomez, C., and C. Bormann, "Problem
Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing",
RFC 6606, DOI 10.17487/RFC6606, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6606>.
11.3. Informative References
[I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd]
Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., Thubert, P., and M.
Wasserman, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Optimizations for
Wired and Wireless Networks", draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-
6man-efficient-nd-07 (work in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.delcarpio-6lo-wlanah]
Vega, L., Robles, I., and R. Morabito, "IPv6 over
802.11ah", draft-delcarpio-6lo-wlanah-01 (work in
progress), October 2015.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
[I-D.hou-6lo-plc]
Hou, J., Hong, Y., and X. Tang, "Transmission of IPv6
Packets over PLC Networks", draft-hou-6lo-plc-03 (work in
progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd]
Thubert, P., Sarikaya, B., and M. Sethi, "Address
Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-06 (work in progress),
February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]
Thubert, P., "IPv6 Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-
backbone-router-06 (work in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc]
Choi, Y., Hong, Y., Youn, J., Kim, D., and J. Choi,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field
Communication", draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-09 (work in progress),
January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-14 (work
in progress), April 2018.
[I-D.ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems]
Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and J.
Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless
Media", draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-01 (work
in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-roll-efficient-npdao]
Jadhav, R., Thubert, P., Sahoo, R., and Z. Cao, "Efficient
Route Invalidation", draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-03
(work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.struik-lwip-curve-representations]
Struik, R., "Alternative Elliptic Curve Representations",
draft-struik-lwip-curve-representations-00 (work in
progress), October 2017.
[I-D.thubert-roll-unaware-leaves]
Thubert, P., "Routing for RPL Leaves", draft-thubert-roll-
unaware-leaves-05 (work in progress), May 2018.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.
[RFC3610] Whiting, D., Housley, R., and N. Ferguson, "Counter with
CBC-MAC (CCM)", RFC 3610, DOI 10.17487/RFC3610, September
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3610>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
[RFC7428] Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", RFC 7428,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7428, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7428>.
[RFC7668] Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low
Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>.
[RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi,
"Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204,
RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>.
[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.
[RFC8065] Thaler, D., "Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation-
Layer Mechanisms", RFC 8065, DOI 10.17487/RFC8065,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8065>.
[RFC8105] Mariager, P., Petersen, J., Ed., Shelby, Z., Van de Logt,
M., and D. Barthel, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra
Low Energy (ULE)", RFC 8105, DOI 10.17487/RFC8105, May
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8105>.
[RFC8163] Lynn, K., Ed., Martocci, J., Neilson, C., and S.
Donaldson, "Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-
Passing (MS/TP) Networks", RFC 8163, DOI 10.17487/RFC8163,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8163>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
11.4. External Informative References
[IEEEstd802154]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks",
IEEE Standard 802.15.4, DOI 10.1109/IEEE
P802.15.4-REVd/D01, June 2017,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460875/>.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
[Perlman83]
Perlman, R., "Fault-Tolerant Broadcast of Routing
Information", North-Holland Computer Networks 7: 395-405,
1983, <http://www.cs.illinois.edu/~pbg/courses/cs598fa09/
readings/p83.pdf>.
Appendix A. Applicability and Requirements Served (Not Normative)
This specification extends 6LoWPAN ND to provide a sequence number to
the registration and serves the requirements expressed in
Appendix B.1 by enabling the mobility of devices from one LLN to the
next. A full specification for enabling mobility based on the use of
the EARO and the registration procedures defined in this document can
be found in a companion document "IPv6 Backbone Router"
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]. The 6BBR is an example of a Routing
Registrar that acts as an IPv6 ND proxy over a Backbone Link that
federates multiple LLNs as well as the Backbone Link intself into a
single IPv6 subnet. The expected registration flow in that case is
illustrated in Figure 6, noting that any combination of 6LR, 6LBR and
6BBR may be collocated.
6LN 6LR 6LBR 6BBR
| | | |
| NS(EARO) | | |
|--------------->| | |
| | Extended DAR | |
| |-------------->| |
| | | |
| | | proxy NS(EARO) |
| | |--------------->|
| | | | NS(DAD)
| | | | ------>
| | | | <wait>
| | | |
| | | proxy NA(EARO) |
| | |<---------------|
| | Extended DAC | |
| |<--------------| |
| NA(EARO) | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | |
Figure 6: (Re-)Registration Flow
"6TiSCH architecture" [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] describes how a
6LoWPAN ND host using the Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) mode of
IEEE Std. 802.15.4 [IEEEstd802154] can connect to the Internet via a
RPL mesh network. Doing so requires additions to the 6LoWPAN ND
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
protocol to support mobility and reachability in a secure and
manageable network environment. This document specifies those new
operations, and fulfills the requirements listed in Appendix B.2.
The term LLN is used loosely in this document, and intended to cover
multiple types of WLANs and WPANs, including Low-Power IEEE Std.
802.11 networking, Bluetooth Low Energy, IEEE Std. 802.11ah, and IEEE
Std. 802.15.4 wireless meshes, so as to address the requirements
discussed in Appendix B.3.
This specification can be used by any wireless node to register its
IPv6 addresses with a Routing Registrar and to obtain routing
services including proxy-ND operations over a Backbone Link. This
satisfies the the requirements expressed in Appendix B.4.
This specification is extended by "Address Protected Neighbor
Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks" [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] to
provide a solution to some of the security-related requirements
expressed in Appendix B.5.
"Efficiency aware IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Optimizations"
[I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] suggests that 6LoWPAN ND
[RFC6775] can be extended to other types of links beyond IEEE Std.
802.15.4 for which it was defined. The registration technique is
beneficial when the Link-Layer technique used to carry IPv6 multicast
packets is not sufficiently efficient in terms of delivery ratio or
energy consumption in the end devices, in particular to enable
energy-constrained sleeping nodes. The value of such extension is
especially apparent in the case of mobile wireless nodes, to reduce
the multicast operations that are related to IPv6 ND ([RFC4861],
[RFC4862]) and affect the operation of the wireless medium
[I-D.ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems]. This serves the
scalability requirements listed in Appendix B.6.
Appendix B. Requirements (Not Normative)
This section lists requirements that were discussed by the 6lo WG for
an update to 6LoWPAN ND. How those requirements are matched with
existing specifications at the time of this writing is shown in
Appendix B.8.
B.1. Requirements Related to Mobility
Due to the unstable nature of LLN links, even in an LLN of immobile
nodes, a 6LN may change its point of attachment from 6LR-a to 6LR-b,
and may not be able to notify 6LR-a. Consequently, 6LR-a may still
attract traffic that it cannot deliver any more. When links to a 6LR
change state, there is thus a need to identify stale states in a 6LR
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
and restore reachability in a timely fashion, e.g., by using some
signaling upon the detection of the movement, or using a keep-alive
mechanism with a period that is consistent with the application
needs.
Req1.1: Upon a change of point of attachment, connectivity via a new
6LR MUST be restored in a timely fashion without the need to de-
register from the previous 6LR.
Req1.2: For that purpose, the protocol MUST enable differentiating
between multiple registrations from one 6LoWPAN Node and
registrations from different 6LoWPAN Nodes claiming the same address.
Req1.3: Stale states MUST be cleaned up in 6LRs.
Req1.4: A 6LoWPAN Node SHOULD also be able to register its Address
concurrently to multiple 6LRs.
B.2. Requirements Related to Routing Protocols
The point of attachment of a 6LN may be a 6LR in an LLN mesh. IPv6
routing in an LLN can be based on RPL, which is the routing protocol
that was defined by the IETF for this particular purpose. Other
routing protocols are also considered by Standards Development
Organizations (SDO) on the basis of the expected network
characteristics. It is required that a 6LN attached via ND to a 6LR
indicates whether it participates in the selected routing protocol to
obtain reachability via the 6LR, or whether it expects the 6LR to
manage its reachability.
The specified updates enable other specifications to define new
services such as Source Address Validation (SAVI) with
[I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd], participation as an unaware leaf to a routing
protocol such as the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy
Networks" [RFC6550] (RPL) with [I-D.thubert-roll-unaware-leaves], and
registration to a backbone routers performing proxy Neighbor
Discovery in a Low-Power and Lossy Network (LLN) with
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router].
Beyond the 6LBR unicast address registered by ND, other addresses
including multicast addresses are needed as well. For example, a
routing protocol often uses a multicast address to register changes
to established paths. ND needs to register such a multicast address
to enable routing concurrently with discovery.
Multicast is needed for groups. Groups may be formed by device type
(e.g., routers, street lamps), location (Geography, RPL sub-tree), or
both.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
The Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Architecture [RFC8279]
proposes an optimized technique to enable multicast in an LLN with a
very limited requirement for routing state in the nodes.
Related requirements are:
Req2.1: The ND registration method SHOULD be extended so that the 6LR
is instructed whether to advertise the Address of a 6LN over the
selected routing protocol and obtain reachability to that Address
using the selected routing protocol.
Req2.2: Considering RPL, the Address Registration Option that is used
in the ND registration SHOULD be extended to carry enough information
to generate a DAO message as specified in section 6.4 of [RFC6550],
in particular the capability to compute a Path Sequence and, as an
option, a RPLInstanceID.
Req2.3: Multicast operations SHOULD be supported and optimized, for
instance, using BIER or MPL. Whether ND is appropriate for the
registration to the Routing Registrar is to be defined, considering
the additional burden of supporting the Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 [RFC3810] (MLDv2) for IPv6.
B.3. Requirements Related to the Variety of Low-Power Link types
6LoWPAN ND [RFC6775] was defined with a focus on IEEE Std.802.15.4
and in particular the capability to derive a unique identifier from a
globally unique EUI-64 address. At this point, the 6lo Working Group
is extending the 6LoWPAN Header Compression (HC) [RFC6282] technique
to other link types including ITU-T G.9959 [RFC7428], Master-Slave/
Token-Passing [RFC8163], DECT Ultra Low Energy [RFC8105], Near Field
Communication [I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc], IEEE Std. 802.11ah
[I-D.delcarpio-6lo-wlanah], as well as Bluetooth(R) Low Energy
[RFC7668], and Power Line Communication (PLC) [I-D.hou-6lo-plc]
Networks.
Related requirements are:
Req3.1: The support of the registration mechanism SHOULD be extended
to more LLN links than IEEE Std.802.15.4, matching at least the LLN
links for which an "IPv6 over foo" specification exists, as well as
Low-Power Wi-Fi.
Req3.2: As part of this extension, a mechanism to compute a unique
identifier should be provided, with the capability to form a Link-
Local Address that SHOULD be unique at least within the LLN connected
to a 6LBR discovered by ND in each node within the LLN.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
Req3.3: The Address Registration Option used in the ND registration
SHOULD be extended to carry the relevant forms of unique Identifier.
Req3.4: The Neighbor Discovery should specify the formation of a
site-local address that follows the security recommendations from
[RFC7217].
B.4. Requirements Related to Proxy Operations
Duty-cycled devices may not be awake to answer a lookup from a node
that uses IPv6 ND and may need a proxy. Additionally, the duty-
cycled device may rely on the 6LBR to perform registration to the
Routing Registrar.
The ND registration method SHOULD defend the addresses of duty-cycled
devices that are sleeping most of the time and not capable to defend
their own addresses.
Related requirements are:
Req4.1: The registration mechanism SHOULD enable a third party to
proxy register an address on behalf of a 6LoWPAN node that may be
sleeping or located deeper in an LLN mesh.
Req4.2: The registration mechanism SHOULD be applicable to a duty-
cycled device regardless of the link type and SHOULD enable a Routing
Registrar to operate as a proxy to defend the Registered Addresses on
its behalf.
Req4.3: The registration mechanism SHOULD enable long sleep
durations, on the order of multiple days to a month.
B.5. Requirements Related to Security
In order to guarantee the operations of the 6LoWPAN ND flows,
spoofing the roles of the 6LR, 6LBR, and Routing Registrar should be
avoided. Once a node successfully registers an address, 6LoWPAN ND
should provide energy-efficient means for the 6LBR to protect that
ownership even when the node that registered the address is sleeping.
In particular, the 6LR and the 6LBR then should be able to verify
whether a subsequent registration for a given address comes from the
original node.
In an LLN it makes sense to base security on Layer-2 security.
During bootstrap of the LLN, nodes join the network after
authorization by a Joining Assistant (JA) or a Commissioning Tool
(CT). After joining, nodes communicate with each other via secured
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
links. The keys for the Layer-2 security are distributed by the JA/
CT. The JA/CT can be part of the LLN or be outside the LLN. In both
cases it is needed that packets are routed between JA/CT and the
joining node.
Related requirements are:
Req5.1: 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD provide a mechanism for
the 6LR, 6LBR, and Routing Registrar to authenticate and authorize
one another for their respective roles, as well as with the 6LoWPAN
Node for the role of 6LR.
Req5.2: 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD provide a mechanism for
the 6LR and the 6LBR to validate new registration of authorized
nodes. Joining of unauthorized nodes MUST be prevented.
Req5.3: 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD NOT lead to large
packet sizes. In particular, the NS, NA, DAR, and DAC messages for a
re-registration flow SHOULD NOT exceed 80 octets so as to fit in a
secured IEEE Std.802.15.4 [IEEEstd802154] frame.
Req5.4: Recurrent 6LoWPAN ND security operations MUST NOT be
computationally intensive on the LoWPAN Node CPU. When a Key hash
calculation is employed, a mechanism lighter than SHA-1 SHOULD be
used.
Req5.5: The number of Keys that the 6LoWPAN Node needs to manipulate
SHOULD be minimized.
Req5.6: The 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD enable the
variation of CCM [RFC3610] called CCM* for use at both Layer 2 and
Layer 3, and SHOULD enable the reuse of security code that has to be
present on the device for upper layer security such as TLS.
Algorithm agility and support for large keys (e.g., 256-bit key
sizes) is also desirable, following at Layer-3 the introduction of
those capabilities at Layer-2.
Req5.7: Public key and signature sizes SHOULD be minimized while
maintaining adequate confidentiality and data origin authentication
for multiple types of applications with various degrees of
criticality.
Req5.8: Routing of packets should continue when links pass from the
unsecured to the secured state.
Req5.9: 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD provide a mechanism for
the 6LR and the 6LBR to validate whether a new registration for a
given address corresponds to the same 6LN that registered it
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
initially, and, if not, determine the rightful owner and deny or
clean up the registration that is duplicate.
B.6. Requirements Related to Scalability
Use cases from Automatic Meter Reading (AMR, collection tree
operations) and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI, bi-directional
communication to the meters) indicate the needs for a large number of
LLN nodes pertaining to a single RPL DODAG (e.g., 5000) and connected
to the 6LBR over a large number of LLN hops (e.g., 15).
Related requirements are:
Req6.1: The registration mechanism SHOULD enable a single 6LBR to
register multiple thousands of devices.
Req6.2: The timing of the registration operation should allow for a
large latency such as found in LLNs with ten to more hops.
B.7. Requirements Related to Operations and Management
Section 3.8 of "Architectural Principles of the Internet" [RFC1958]
recommends to: "avoid options and parameters whenever possible. Any
options and parameters should be configured or negotiated dynamically
rather than manually". This is especially true in LLNs where the
number of devices may be large and manual configuration is
infeasible. Capabilities for a dynamic configuration of LLN devices
can also be constrained by the network and power limitation.
A Network Administrator should be able to validate that the network
is operating within capacity, and that in particular a 6LBR does not
get overloaded with an excessive amount of registration, so the
administrator can take actions such as adding a Backbone Link with
additional 6LBRs and Routing Registrars to the network.
Related requirements are:
Req7.1: A management model SHOULD be provided that enables access to
the 6LBR, monitor its usage vs. capacity, and alert in case of
congestion. It is recommended that the 6LBR be reachable over a non-
LLN link.
Req7.2: A management model SHOULD be provided that enables access to
the 6LR and its capacity to host additional NCE. This management
model SHOULD avoid polling individual 6LRs in a way that could
disrupt the operation of the LLN.
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
Req7.3: Information on successful and failed registration SHOULD be
provided, including information such as the ROVR of the 6LN, the
Registered Address, the address of the 6LR, and the duration of the
registration flow.
Req7.4: In case of a failed registration, information on the failure
including the identification of the node that rejected the
registration and the status in the EARO SHOULD be provided.
B.8. Matching Requirements with Specifications
I-drafts/RFCs addressing requirements
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Requirement | Document |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Req1.1 | [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router] |
| | |
| Req1.2 | [RFC6775] |
| | |
| Req1.3 | [RFC6775] |
| | |
| Req1.4 | This RFC |
| | |
| Req2.1 | This RFC |
| | |
| Req2.2 | This RFC |
| | |
| Req2.3 | |
| | |
| Req3.1 | Technology Dependent |
| | |
| Req3.2 | Technology Dependent |
| | |
| Req3.3 | Technology Dependent |
| | |
| Req3.4 | Technology Dependent |
| | |
| Req4.1 | This RFC |
| | |
| Req4.2 | This RFC |
| | |
| Req4.3 | [RFC6775] |
| | |
| Req5.1 | |
| | |
| Req5.2 | [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] |
| | |
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
| Req5.3 | |
| | |
| Req5.4 | |
| | |
| Req5.5 | [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] |
| | |
| Req5.6 | [I-D.struik-lwip-curve-representations] |
| | |
| Req5.7 | [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] |
| | |
| Req5.8 | |
| | |
| Req5.9 | [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] |
| | |
| Req6.1 | This RFC |
| | |
| Req6.2 | This RFC |
| | |
| Req7.1 | |
| | |
| Req7.2 | |
| | |
| Req7.3 | |
| | |
| Req7.4 | |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 8: Work Addressing requirements
Authors' Addresses
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D (Regus) 45 Allee des Ormes
Mougins - Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Erik Nordmark
Zededa
Santa Clara, CA
United States of America
Email: nordmark@sonic.net
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN ND June 2018
Samita Chakrabarti
Verizon
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: samitac.ietf@gmail.com
Charles E. Perkins
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara 95050
United States of America
Email: charliep@computer.org
Thubert, et al. Expires December 21, 2018 [Page 45]
