Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl
ROLL C.E. Perkins
Internet-Draft Lupin Lodge
Intended status: Standards Track S.V.R.Anand
Expires: 17 February 2024 Indian Institute of Science
S. Anamalamudi
SRM University-AP
B. Liu
Huawei Technologies
16 August 2023
Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks: AODV-RPL
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-18
Abstract
Route discovery for symmetric and asymmetric Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
traffic flows is a desirable feature in Low power and Lossy Networks
(LLNs). For that purpose, this document specifies a reactive P2P
route discovery mechanism for both hop-by-hop routes and source
routing: Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) based RPL
protocol (AODV-RPL). Paired Instances are used to construct
directional paths, for cases where there are asymmetric links between
source and target nodes.
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 17 February 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview of AODV-RPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. AODV-RPL DIO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. AODV-RPL RREQ Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. AODV-RPL RREP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. AODV-RPL Target Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Symmetric and Asymmetric Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. AODV-RPL Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Route Request Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Receiving and Forwarding RREQ messages . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.1. Step 1: RREQ reception and evaluation . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.2. Step 2: TargNode and Intermediate Router
determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.3. Step 3: Intermediate Router RREQ processing . . . . . 19
6.2.4. Step 4: Symmetric Route Processing at an Intermediate
Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.5. Step 5: RREQ propagation at an Intermediate Router . 20
6.2.6. Step 6: RREQ reception at TargNode . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Generating Route Reply (RREP) at TargNode . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.1. RREP-DIO for Symmetric route . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3.2. RREP-DIO for Asymmetric Route . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3.3. RPLInstanceID Pairing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.4. Receiving and Forwarding Route Reply . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4.1. Step 1: Receiving and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4.2. Step 2: OrigNode or Intermediate Router . . . . . . . 22
6.4.3. Step 3: Build Route to TargNode . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4.4. Step 4: RREP Propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Gratuitous RREP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Operation of Trickle Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Appendix A. Example: Using ETX/RSSI Values to determine value of S
bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B. Some Example AODV-RPL Message Flows . . . . . . . . 31
B.1. Example control message flows in symmetric and asymmetric
networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.2. Example RREP_WAIT handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.3. Example GRREP handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix C. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
C.1. Changes from version 17 to version 18 . . . . . . . . . . 35
C.2. Changes from version 16 to version 17 . . . . . . . . . . 35
C.3. Changes from version 15 to version 16 . . . . . . . . . . 36
C.4. Changes from version 14 to version 15 . . . . . . . . . . 36
C.5. Changes from version 13 to version 14 . . . . . . . . . . 37
C.6. Changes from version 12 to version 13 . . . . . . . . . . 38
C.7. Changes from version 11 to version 12 . . . . . . . . . . 38
C.8. Changes from version 10 to version 11 . . . . . . . . . . 39
C.9. Changes from version 09 to version 10 . . . . . . . . . . 40
C.10. Changes from version 08 to version 09 . . . . . . . . . . 40
C.11. Changes from version 07 to version 08 . . . . . . . . . . 41
C.12. Changes from version 06 to version 07 . . . . . . . . . . 41
C.13. Changes from version 05 to version 06 . . . . . . . . . . 42
C.14. Changes from version 04 to version 05 . . . . . . . . . . 42
C.15. Changes from version 03 to version 04 . . . . . . . . . . 42
C.16. Changes from version 02 to version 03 . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appendix D. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1. Introduction
Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) [RFC6550] is
an IPv6 distance vector routing protocol designed to support multiple
traffic flows through a root-based Destination-Oriented Directed
Acyclic Graph (DODAG). Typically, a router does not have routing
information for most other routers. Consequently, for traffic
between routers within the DODAG (i.e., Peer-to-Peer (P2P) traffic)
data packets either have to traverse the root in non-storing mode, or
traverse a common ancestor in storing mode. Such P2P traffic is
thereby likely to traverse longer routes and may suffer severe
congestion near the root (for more information see [RFC6687],
[RFC6997], [RFC6998], [RFC9010]). The network environment that is
considered in this document is assumed to be the same as described in
Section 1 of [RFC6550]. Each radio interface/link and the associated
address should be treated as an independent intermediate router.
Such routers have different links and the rules for the link symmetry
apply independently for each of these.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
The route discovery process in AODV-RPL is modeled on the analogous
peer-to-peer procedure specified in AODV [RFC3561]. The on-demand
property of AODV route discovery is useful for the needs of routing
in RPL-based LLNs when routes are needed but aren't yet established.
Peer-to-peer routing is desirable to discover shorter routes, and
especially when it is desired to avoid directing additional traffic
through a root or gateway node of the network. It may happen that
some routes need to be established proactively when known beforehand
and when AODV-RPL's route discovery process introduces unwanted delay
at the time when the application is launched.
AODV terminology has been adapted for use with AODV-RPL messages,
namely RREQ for Route Request, and RREP for Route Reply. AODV-RPL
currently omits some features compared to AODV -- in particular,
flagging Route Errors, "blacklisting" unidirectional links
([RFC3561]), multihoming, and handling unnumbered interfaces.
AODV-RPL reuses and extends the core RPL functionality to support
routes with bidirectional asymmetric links. It retains RPL's DODAG
formation, RPL Instance and the associated Objective Function
(defined in [RFC6551]), trickle timers, and support for storing and
non-storing modes. AODV-RPL adds basic messages RREQ and RREP as
part of RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) control message, which go
in separate (paired) RPL instances. AODV-RPL does not utilize the
Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) control message of RPL. AODV-
RPL uses the "P2P Route Discovery Mode of Operation" (MOP == 4) with
three new Options for the DIO message, dedicated to discover P2P
routes. These P2P routes may differ from routes discoverable by
native RPL. Since AODV-RPL uses newly defined Options and a newly
allocated multicast group (see Section 9), there is no conflict with
P2P-RPL [RFC6997], a previous document using the same MOP. AODV-RPL
can be operated whether or not P2P-RPL or native RPL is running
otherwise. AODV-RPL could be used for networks in which routes are
needed with Objective Functions that cannot be satisfied by routes
that are constrained to traverse the root of the network or other
common ancestors. P2P routes often require fewer hops and therefore
consume less resources than routes that traverse the root or other
common ancestors. Similar in cost to base RPL [RFC6550], the cost
will depend on many factors such as the proximity of the OrigNode and
TargNodes and distribution of symmetric/asymmetric P2P links.
Experience with AODV [aodv-tot] suggests that AODV-RPL will often
find routes with improved rank compared to routes constrained to
traverse a common ancestor of the source and destination nodes.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
2. Terminology
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.
AODV-RPL reuses names for messages and data structures, including
Rank, DODAG and DODAGID, as defined in RPL [RFC6550].
AODV
Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing [RFC3561].
ART option
AODV-RPL Target option: a target option defined in this document.
Asymmetric Route
The route from the OrigNode to the TargNode can traverse different
nodes than the route from the TargNode to the OrigNode. An
asymmetric route may result from the asymmetry of links, such that
only one direction of the series of links satisfies the Objective
Function during route discovery.
Bi-directional Asymmetric Link
A link that can be used in both directions but with different link
characteristics.
DIO
DODAG Information Object (as defined in [RFC6550])
DODAG RREQ-Instance (or simply RREQ-Instance)
RPL Instance built using the DIO with RREQ option; used for
transmission of control messages from OrigNode to TargNode, thus
enabling data transmission from TargNode to OrigNode.
DODAG RREP-Instance (or simply RREP-Instance)
RPL Instance built using the DIO with RREP option; used for
transmission of control messages from TargNode to OrigNode thus
enabling data transmission from OrigNode to TargNode.
Downward Direction
The direction from the OrigNode to the TargNode.
Downward Route
A route in the downward direction.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
hop-by-hop route
A route for which each router along the routing path stores
routing information about the next hop. A hop-by-hop route is
created using RPL's "storing mode".
OF
An Objective Function as defined in [RFC6550].
on-demand routing
Routing in which a route is established only when needed.
OrigNode
The IPv6 router (Originating Node) initiating the AODV-RPL route
discovery to obtain a route to TargNode.
Paired DODAGs
Two DODAGs for a single route discovery process between OrigNode
and TargNode.
P2P
Peer-to-Peer -- in other words, not constrained a priori to
traverse a common ancestor.
reactive routing
Same as "on-demand" routing.
REJOIN_REENABLE
The duration during which a node is prohibited from joining a
DODAG with a particular RREQ-InstanceID, after it has left a DODAG
with the same RREQ-InstanceID. The default value of
REJOIN_REENQBLE is 15 minutes.
RREQ
A RREQ-DIO message.
RREQ-DIO message
A DIO message containing the RREQ option. The RPLInstanceID in
RREQ-DIO is assigned locally by the OrigNode. The RREQ-DIO
message has a secure variant as noted in [RFC6550].
RREQ-InstanceID
The RPLInstanceID for the RREQ-Instance. The RREQ-InstanceID is
formed as the ordered pair (Orig_RPLInstanceID, OrigNode-IPaddr),
where Orig_RPLInstanceID is the local RPLInstanceID allocated by
OrigNode, and OrigNode-IPaddr is an IP address of OrigNode. The
RREQ-InstanceID uniquely identifies the RREQ-Instance.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
RREP
A RREP-DIO message.
RREP-DIO message
A DIO message containing the RREP option. OrigNode pairs the
RPLInstanceID in RREP-DIO to the one in the associated RREQ-DIO
message (i.e., the RREQ-InstanceID) as described in Section 6.3.2.
The RREP-DIO message has a secure variant as noted in [RFC6550].
RREP-InstanceID
The RPLInstanceID for the RREP-Instance. The RREP-InstanceID is
formed as the ordered pair (Targ_RPLInstanceID, TargNode-IPaddr),
where Targ_RPLInstanceID is the local RPLInstanceID allocated by
TargNode, and TargNode-IPaddr is an IP address of TargNode. The
RREP-InstanceID uniquely identifies the RREP-Instance. The
RPLInstanceID in the RREP message along with the Delta value
indicates the associated RREQ-InstanceID. The InstanceIDs are
matched by mechanism explained in Section 6.3.3
Source routing
A mechanism by which the source supplies a vector of addresses
towards the destination node along with each data packet
[RFC6550].
Symmetric route
The upstream and downstream routes traverse the same routers and
over the same links.
TargNode
The IPv6 router (Target Node) for which OrigNode requires a route
and initiates Route Discovery within the LLN network.
Upward Direction
The direction from the TargNode to the OrigNode.
Upward Route
A route in the upward direction.
3. Overview of AODV-RPL
With AODV-RPL, routes from OrigNode to TargNode within the LLN
network are established "on-demand". In other words, the route
discovery mechanism in AODV-RPL is invoked reactively when OrigNode
has data for delivery to the TargNode but existing routes do not
satisfy the application's requirements. AODV-RPL works without
requiring the use of RPL or any other routing protocol.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
The routes discovered by AODV-RPL are not constrained to traverse a
common ancestor. AODV-RPL can enable asymmetric communication paths
in networks with bidirectional asymmetric links. For this purpose,
AODV-RPL enables discovery of two routes: namely, one from OrigNode
to TargNode, and another from TargNode to OrigNode. AODV-RPL also
enables discovery of symmetric routes along Paired DODAGs, when
symmetric routes are possible (see Section 5).
In AODV-RPL, routes are discovered by first forming a temporary DAG
rooted at the OrigNode. Paired DODAGs (Instances) are constructed
during route formation between the OrigNode and TargNode. The RREQ-
Instance is formed by route control messages from OrigNode to
TargNode whereas the RREP-Instance is formed by route control
messages from TargNode to OrigNode. The route discovered in the
RREQ-Instance is used for transmitting data from TargNode to
OrigNode, and the route discovered in RREP-Instance is used for
transmitting data from OrigNode to TargNode.
Intermediate routers join the DODAGs based on the Rank [RFC6550] as
calculated from the DIO message.s AODV-RPL uses the same notion of
rank as defined in RFC6550: "The Rank is the expression of a relative
position within a DODAG Version with regard to neighbors, and it is
not necessarily a good indication or a proper expression of a
distance or a path cost to the root." The Rank measurements provided
in AODV messages do not indicate a distance or a path cost to the
root.
Henceforth in this document, "RREQ-DIO message" means the DIO message
from OrigNode toward TargNode, containing the RREQ option as
specified in Section 4.1. The RREQ-InstanceID is formed as the
ordered pair (Orig_RPLInstanceID, OrigNode-IPaddr), where
Orig_RPLInstanceID is the local RPLInstanceID allocated by OrigNode,
and OrigNode-IPaddr is the IP address of OrigNode. A node receiving
the RREQ-DIO can use the RREQ-InstanceID to identify the proper OF
whenever that node receives a data packet with Source Address ==
OrigNode-IPaddr and IPv6 RPL Option having the RPLInstanceID ==
Orig_RPLInstanceID. The 'D' bit of the RPLInstanceID field is set to
0 to indicate that the source address of the IPv6 packet is the
DODAGID.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Similarly, "RREP-DIO message" means the DIO message from TargNode
toward OrigNode, containing the RREP option as specified in
Section 4.2. The RREP-InstanceID is formed as the ordered pair
(Targ_RPLInstanceID, TargNode-IPaddr), where Targ_RPLInstanceID is
the local RPLInstanceID allocated by TargNode, and TargNode-IPaddr is
the IP address of TargNode. A node receiving the RREP-DIO can use
the RREP-InstanceID to identify the proper OF whenever that node
receives a data packet with Source Address == TargNode-IPaddr and
IPv6 RPL Option having the RPLInstanceID == Targ_RPLInstanceID along
with 'D' == 0 as above.
4. AODV-RPL DIO Options
4.1. AODV-RPL RREQ Option
OrigNode selects one of its IPv6 addresses and sets it in the DODAGID
field of the RREQ-DIO message. The address scope of the selected
address must encompass the domain where the route is built (e.g, not
link-local). Exactly one RREQ option MUST be present in a RREQ-DIO
message, otherwise the message MUST be dropped.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Length |S|H|X| Compr | L | RankLimit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Orig SeqNo | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| |
| Address Vector (Optional, Variable Length) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Format for AODV-RPL RREQ Option
OrigNode supplies the following information in the RREQ option:
Option Type
TBD2
Option Length
The length of the option in octets, excluding the Type and Length
fields. Variable due to the presence of the address vector and
the number of octets elided according to the Compr value.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
S
Symmetric bit indicating a symmetric route from the OrigNode to
the router transmitting this RREQ-DIO. See Section 5.
H
Set to one for a hop-by-hop route. Set to zero for a source
route. This flag controls both the downstream route and upstream
route.
X
Reserved; MUST be initialized to zero and ignored upon reception.
Compr
4-bit unsigned integer. When Compr is nonzero, exactly that
number of prefix octets MUST be elided from each address before
storing it in the Address Vector. The octets elided are shared
with the IPv6 address in the DODAGID. This field is only used in
source routing mode (H=0). In hop-by-hop mode (H=1), this field
MUST be set to zero and ignored upon reception.
L
2-bit unsigned integer determining the time duration that a node
is able to belong to the RREQ-Instance (a temporary DAG including
the OrigNode and the TargNode). Once the time is reached, a node
SHOULD leave the RREQ-Instance and stop sending or receiving any
more DIOs for the RREQ-Instance; otherwise memory and network
resources are likely to be consumed unnecessarily. This naturally
depends on the node's ability to keep track of time. Once a node
leaves an RREQ-Instance, it MUST NOT rejoin the same RREQ-Instance
for at least the time interval specified by the configuration
variable REJOIN_REENABLE. L is independent from the route
lifetime, which is defined in the DODAG configuration option.
* 0x00: No time limit imposed.
* 0x01: 16 seconds
* 0x02: 64 seconds
* 0x03: 256 seconds
RankLimit
This field indicates the upper limit on the integer portion of the
Rank (calculated using the DAGRank() macro defined in [RFC6550]).
A value of 0 in this field indicates the limit is infinity.
Orig SeqNo
Sequence Number of OrigNode. See Section 6.1.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Address Vector
A vector of IPv6 addresses representing the route that the RREQ-
DIO has passed. It is only present when the H bit is set to 0.
The prefix of each address is elided according to the Compr field.
TargNode can join the RREQ instance at a Rank whose integer portion
is less than or equal to the RankLimit. Any other node MUST NOT join
a RREQ instance if its own Rank would be equal to or higher than
RankLimit. A router MUST discard a received RREQ if the integer part
of the advertised Rank equals or exceeds the RankLimit.
4.2. AODV-RPL RREP Option
TargNode sets one of its IPv6 addresses in the DODAGID field of the
RREP-DIO message. The address scope of the selected address must
encompass the domain where the route is built (e.g, not link-local).
Exactly one RREP option MUST be present in a RREP-DIO message,
otherwise the message MUST be dropped. TargNode supplies the
following information in the RREP option:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Length |G|H|X| Compr | L | RankLimit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Delta |X X| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| |
| Address Vector (Optional, Variable Length) |
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Format for AODV-RPL RREP option
Option Type
TBD3
Option Length
The length of the option in octets, excluding the Type and Length
fields. Variable due to the presence of the address vector and
the number of octets elided according to the Compr value.
G
Gratuitous RREP (see Section 7).
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
H
The H bit in the RREP option MUST be set to be the same as the H
bit in RREQ option. It requests either source routing (H=0) or
hop-by-hop (H=1) for the downstream route.
X
Reserved; MUST be initialized to zero and ignored upon reception.
Compr
4-bit unsigned integer. Same definition as in RREQ option.
L
2-bit unsigned integer defined as in RREQ option. The lifetime of
the RREP-Instance SHOULD be no greater than the lifetime of the
RREQ-Instance to which it is paired, so that the memory required
to store the RREP-Instance can be reclaimed when no longer needed.
RankLimit
Similarly to RankLimit in the RREQ message, this field indicates
the upper limit on the integer portion of the Rank. A value of 0
in this field indicates the limit is infinity.
Delta
6-bit unsigned integer. TargNode uses the Delta field so that
nodes receiving its RREP message can identify the RREQ-InstanceID
of the RREQ message that triggered the transmission of the RREP
(see Section 6.3.3).
X X
Reserved; MUST be initialized to zero and ignored upon reception.
Address Vector
Only present when the H bit is set to 0. For an asymmetric route,
the Address Vector represents the IPv6 addresses of the path
through the network the RREP-DIO has passed. For a symmetric
route, it is the Address Vector when the RREQ-DIO arrives at the
TargNode, unchanged during the transmission to the OrigNode.
4.3. AODV-RPL Target Option
The AODV-RPL Target (ART) Option is based on the Target Option in
core RPL [RFC6550]. The Flags field is replaced by the Destination
Sequence Number of the TargNode and the Prefix Length field is
reduced to 7 bits so that the value is limited to be no greater than
127.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
A RREQ-DIO message MUST carry at least one ART Option. A RREP-DIO
message MUST carry exactly one ART Option. Otherwise, the message
MUST be dropped.
OrigNode can include multiple TargNode addresses via multiple AODV-
RPL Target Options in the RREQ-DIO, for routes that share the same
requirement on metrics. This reduces the cost to building only one
DODAG for multiple targets.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Length | Dest SeqNo |X|Prefix Length|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ |
| Target Prefix / Address (Variable Length) |
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: ART Option format for AODV-RPL
Option Type
TBD4
Option Length
Length of the option in octets excluding the Type and Length
fields.
Dest SeqNo
In RREQ-DIO, if nonzero, it is the Sequence Number for the last
route that OrigNode stored to the TargNode for which a route is
desired. In RREP-DIO, it is the destination sequence number
associated to the route. Zero is used if there is no known
information about the sequence number of TargNode, and not used
otherwise.
X
A one-bit reserved field. This field MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Prefix Length
7-bit unsigned integer. Number of valid leading bits in the IPv6
Prefix. If Prefix Length is 0, then the value in the Target
Prefix / Address field represents an IPv6 address, not a prefix.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Target Prefix / Address
(variable-length field) An IPv6 destination address or prefix.
The Prefix Length field contains the number of valid leading bits
in the prefix. The Target Prefix / Address field contains the
least number of octets that can represent all of the bits of the
Prefix, in other words Ceil(Prefix Length/8) octets. The initial
bits in the Target Prefix / Address field preceding the prefix
length (if any) MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt. If Prefix Length is zero, the Address field
is 128 bits for IPv6 addresses.
5. Symmetric and Asymmetric Routes
Links are considered symmetric until indication to the contrary is
received. In Figure 4 and Figure 5, BR is the Border Router, O is
the OrigNode, each R is an intermediate router, and T is the
TargNode. In this example, the use of BR is only for illustrative
purposes; AODV does not depend on the use of border routers for its
operation. If the RREQ-DIO arrives over an interface that is known
to be symmetric, and the S bit is set to 1, then it remains as 1, as
illustrated in Figure 4. If an intermediate router sends out RREQ-
DIO with the S bit set to 1, then each link en route from the
OrigNode O to this router has met the requirements of route
discovery, and the route can be used symmetrically.
BR
/----+----\
/ | \
/ | \
R R R
_/ \ | / \
/ \ | / \
/ \ | / \
R -------- R --- R ----- R -------- R
/ \ <--S=1--> / \ <--S=1--> / \
<--S=1--> \ / \ / <--S=1-->
/ \ / \ / \
O ---------- R ------ R------ R ----- R ----------- T
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
R ----- R ----------- R ----- R ----- R ----- R ---- R----- R
>---- RREQ-Instance (Control: O-->T; Data: T-->O) ------->
<---- RREP-Instance (Control: T-->O; Data: O-->T) -------<
Figure 4: AODV-RPL with Symmetric Instances
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Upon receiving a RREQ-DIO with the S bit set to 1, a node determines
whether this link can be used symmetrically, i.e., both directions
meet the requirements of data transmission. If the RREQ-DIO arrives
over an interface that is not known to be symmetric, or is known to
be asymmetric, the S bit is set to 0. If the S bit arrives already
set to be '0', it is set to be '0' when the RREQ-DIO is propagated
(Figure 5). For an asymmetric route, there is at least one hop which
doesn't satisfy the Objective Function. Based on the S bit received
in RREQ-DIO, TargNode T determines whether or not the route is
symmetric before transmitting the RREP-DIO message upstream towards
the OrigNode O.
It is beyond the scope of this document to specify the criteria used
when determining whether or not each link is symmetric. As an
example, intermediate routers can use local information (e.g., bit
rate, bandwidth, number of cells used in 6tisch [RFC9030]), a priori
knowledge (e.g., link quality according to previous communication) or
use averaging techniques as appropriate to the application. Other
link metric information can be acquired before AODV-RPL operation, by
executing evaluation procedures; for instance test traffic can be
generated between nodes of the deployed network. During AODV-RPL
operation, OAM techniques for evaluating link state (see [RFC7548],
[RFC7276], [co-ioam]) MAY be used (at regular intervals appropriate
for the LLN). The evaluation procedures are out of scope for AODV-
RPL. For further information on this topic, see [Link_Asymmetry],
[low-power-wireless], and [empirical-study].
Appendix A describes an example method using the upstream Expected
Number of Transmissions (ETX) and downstream Received Signal Strength
Indicator (RSSI) to estimate whether the link is symmetric in terms
of link quality using an averaging technique.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
BR
/----+----\
/ | \
/ | \
R R R
/ \ | / \
/ \ | / \
/ \ | / \
R --------- R --- R ---- R --------- R
/ \ --S=1--> / \ --S=0--> / \
--S=1--> \ / \ / --S=0-->
/ \ / \ / \
O ---------- R ------ R------ R ----- R ----------- T
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ <--S=0-- / \ / \ / <--S=0--
/ \ / \ / \ / \
R ----- R ----------- R ----- R ----- R ----- R ---- R----- R
<--S=0-- <--S=0-- <--S=0-- <--S=0-- <--S=0--
>---- RREQ-Instance (Control: O-->T; Data: T-->O) ------->
<---- RREP-Instance (Control: T-->O; Data: O-->T) -------<
Figure 5: AODV-RPL with Asymmetric Paired Instances
As illustrated in Figure 5, an intermediate router determines the S
bit value that the RREQ-DIO should carry using link asymmetry
detection methods as discussed earlier in this section. In many
cases the intermediate router has already made the link asymmetry
decision by the time RREQ-DIO arrives.
See Appendix B for examples illustrating RREQ and RREP transmissions
in some networks with symmetric and asymmetric links.
6. AODV-RPL Operation
6.1. Route Request Generation
The route discovery process is initiated when an application at the
OrigNode has data to be transmitted to the TargNode, but does not
have a route that satisfies the Objective Function for the target of
the application's data. In this case, the OrigNode builds a local
RPLInstance and a DODAG rooted at itself. Then it transmits a DIO
message containing exactly one RREQ option (see Section 4.1) to
multicast group all-AODV-RPL-nodes. The RREQ-DIO MUST contain at
least one ART Option (see Section 4.3), which indicates the TargNode.
The S bit in RREQ-DIO sent out by the OrigNode is set to 1.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Each node maintains a sequence number; the operation is specified in
section 7.2 of [RFC6550]. When the OrigNode initiates a route
discovery process, it MUST increase its own sequence number to avoid
conflicts with previously established routes. The sequence number is
carried in the Orig SeqNo field of the RREQ option.
The Target Prefix / Address in the ART Option can be a unicast IPv6
address or a prefix. The OrigNode can initiate the route discovery
process for multiple targets simultaneously by including multiple ART
Options. Within a RREQ-DIO the Objective Function for the routes to
different TargNodes MUST be the same.
OrigNode can maintain different RPLInstances to discover routes with
different requirements to the same targets. Using the RPLInstanceID
pairing mechanism (see Section 6.3.3), route replies (RREP-DIOs) for
different RPLInstances can be generated.
The transmission of RREQ-DIO obeys the Trickle timer [RFC6206]. If
the duration specified by the L field has elapsed, the OrigNode MUST
leave the DODAG and stop sending RREQ-DIOs in the related
RPLInstance. OrigNode needs to set L field such that the DODAG will
not prematurely timeout during data transfer with the TargNode. For
setting this value, it has to consider factors such as Trickle timer,
TargNode hop distance, network size, link behavior, expected data
usage time, and so on.
6.2. Receiving and Forwarding RREQ messages
6.2.1. Step 1: RREQ reception and evaluation
When a router X receives a RREQ message over a link from a neighbor
Y, X first determines whether or not the RREQ is valid. If so, X
then determines whether or not it has sufficient resources available
to maintain the state needed to process an eventual RREP if the RREP
were to be received. If not, then X MUST drop the packet and
discontinue processing of the RREQ. Otherwise, X next determines
whether the RREQ advertises a usable route to OrigNode, by checking
whether the link to Y can be used to tramsmit packets to OrigNode.
When H=0 in the incoming RREQ, the router MUST drop the RREQ-DIO if
one of its addresses is present in the Address Vector. When H=1 in
the incoming RREQ, the router MUST drop the RREQ message if Orig
SeqNo field of the RREQ is older than the SeqNo value that X has
stored for a route to OrigNode. Otherwise, the router determines
whether to propagate the RREQ-DIO. It does this by determining
whether or not a route to OrigNode using the upstream direction of
the incoming link satisfies the Objective Function (OF). In order to
evaluate the OF, the router first determines the maximum useful rank
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
(MaxUsefulRank). If the router has previously joined the RREQ-
Instance associated with the RREQ-DIO, then MaxUsefulRank is set to
be the Rank value that was stored when the router processed the best
previous RREQ for the DODAG with the given RREQ-Instance. Otherwise,
MaxUsefulRank is set to be RankLimit. If OF cannot be satisfied
(i.e., the Rank evaluates to a value greater than MaxUsefulRank) the
RREQ-DIO MUST be dropped, and the following steps are not processed.
Otherwise, the router MUST join the RREQ-Instance and prepare to
propagate the RREQ-DIO, as follows. The upstream neighbor router
that transmitted the received RREQ-DIO is selected as the preferred
parent in the RREQ-Instance.
6.2.2. Step 2: TargNode and Intermediate Router determination
After determining that a received RREQ provides a usable route to
OrigNode, a router determines whether it is a TargNode, or a possible
intermediate router between OrigNode and a TargNode, or both. The
router is a TargNode if it finds one of its own addresses in a Target
Option in the RREQ. After possibly propagating the RREQ according to
the procedures in Steps 3, 4, and 5, the TargNode generates a RREP as
specified in Section 6.3. If S=0, the determination of TargNode
status and determination of a usable route to OrigNode is the same.
If the OrigNode tries to reach multiple TargNodes in a single RREQ-
Instance, one of the TargNodes can be an intermediate router to other
TargNodes. In this case, before transmitting the RREQ-DIO to
multicast group all-AODV-RPL-nodes, a TargNode MUST delete the Target
Option encapsulating its own address, so that downstream routers with
higher Rank values do not try to create a route to this TargNode.
An intermediate router could receive several RREQ-DIOs from routers
with lower Rank values in the same RREQ-Instance with different lists
of Target Options. For the purposes of determining the intersection
with previous incoming RREQ-DIOs, the intermediate router maintains a
record of the targets that have been requested for a given RREQ-
Instance. An incoming RREQ-DIO message having multiple ART Options
coming from a router with higher Rank than the Rank of the stored
targets is ignored. When transmitting the RREQ-DIO, the intersection
of all received lists MUST be included if it is nonempty after
TargNode has deleted the Target Option encapsulating its own address.
If the intersection is empty, it means that all the targets have been
reached, and the router MUST NOT transmit any RREQ-DIO. Otherwise it
proceeds to Section 6.2.3.
For example, suppose two RREQ-DIOs are received with the same
RPLInstance and OrigNode. Suppose further that the first RREQ has
(T1, T2) as the targets, and the second one has (T2, T4) as targets.
Then only T2 needs to be included in the generated RREQ-DIO.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
The reasoning for using the intersection of the lists in the RREQs is
as follows. When two or more RREQs are received with the same Orig
SeqNo, they were transmitted by OrigNode with the same destinations
and OF. When an intermediate node receives two RREQs with the same
Orig SeqNo but different lists of destinations, that means that some
intermediate nodes retransmitting the RREQs have already deleted
themselves from the list of destinations before they retransmitted
the RREQ. Those deleted nodes are not be re-inserted back into the
list of destinations.
6.2.3. Step 3: Intermediate Router RREQ processing
The intermediate router establishes itself as a viable node for a
route to OrigNode as follows. If the H bit is set to 1, for a hop-
by-hop route, then the router MUST build or update its upward route
entry towards OrigNode, which includes at least the following items:
Source Address, RPLInstanceID, Destination Address, Next Hop,
Lifetime, and Sequence Number. The Destination Address and the
RPLInstanceID respectively can be learned from the DODAGID and the
RPLInstanceID of the RREQ-DIO. The Source Address is the address
used by the router to send data to the Next Hop, i.e., the preferred
parent. The lifetime is set according to DODAG configuration (not
the L field) and can be extended when the route is actually used.
The Sequence Number represents the freshness of the route entry; it
is copied from the Orig SeqNo field of the RREQ option. A route
entry with the same source and destination address, same
RPLInstanceID, but a stale Sequence Number (i.e., incoming sequence
number is less than the currently stored Sequence Number of the route
entry), MUST be deleted.
6.2.4. Step 4: Symmetric Route Processing at an Intermediate Router
If the S bit of the incoming RREQ-DIO is 0, then the route cannot be
symmetric, and the S bit of the RREQ-DIO to be transmitted is set to
0. Otherwise, the router MUST determine whether the downward (i.e.,
towards the TargNode) direction of the incoming link satisfies the
OF. If so, the S bit of the RREQ-DIO to be transmitted is set to 1.
Otherwise the S bit of the RREQ-DIO to be transmitted is set to 0.
When a router joins the RREQ-Instance, it also associates within its
data structure for the RREQ-Instance the information about whether or
not the RREQ-DIO to be transmitted has the S-bit set to 1. This
information associated to RREQ-Instance is known as the S-bit of the
RREQ-Instance. It will be used later during the RREP-DIO message
processing Section 6.3.2.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Suppose a router has joined the RREQ-Instance, and H=0, and the S-bit
of the RREQ-Instance is set to 1. In this case, the router MAY
optionally include the Address Vector of the symmetric route back to
OrigNode as part of the RREQ-Instance data. This is useful if the
router later receives an RREP-DIO that is paired with the RREQ-
Instance. If the router does NOT include the Address Vector, then it
has to rely on multicast for the RREP. The multicast can impose a
substantial performance penalty.
6.2.5. Step 5: RREQ propagation at an Intermediate Router
If the router is an intermediate router, then it transmits the RREQ-
DIO to the multicast group all-AODV-RPL-nodes; if the H bit is set to
0, the intermediate router MUST append the address of its interface
receiving the RREQ-DIO into the address vector. If, in addition, the
address of the router's transmitting the RREQ-DIO is not the same as
the address of the interface receiving the RREQ-DIO, the router MUST
also append the transmitting interface address into the address
vector.
6.2.6. Step 6: RREQ reception at TargNode
If the router is a TargNode and was already associated with the RREQ-
Instance, it takes no further action and does not send an RREP-DIO.
If TargNode is not already associated with the RREQ-Instance, it
prepares and transmits a RREP-DIO, possibly after waiting for
RREP_WAIT_TIME, as detailed in (Section 6.3).
6.3. Generating Route Reply (RREP) at TargNode
When a TargNode receives a RREQ message over a link from a neighbor
Y, TargNode first follows the procedures in Section 6.2. If the link
to Y can be used to tramsmit packets to OrigNode, TargNode generates
a RREP according to the steps below. Otherwise TargNode drops the
RREQ and does not generate a RREP.
If the L field is not 0, the TargNode MAY delay transmitting the
RREP-DIO for duration RREP_WAIT_TIME to await a route with a lower
Rank. The value of RREP_WAIT_TIME is set by default to 1/4 of the
duration determined by the L field. For L == 0, RREP_WAIT_TIME is
set by default to 0. Depending upon the application, RREP_WAIT_TIME
may be set to other values. Smaller values enable quicker formation
for the P2P route. Larger values enable formation of P2P routes with
better Rank values.
The address of the OrigNode MUST be encapsulated in the ART Option
and included in this RREP-DIO message along with the SeqNo of
TargNode.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
6.3.1. RREP-DIO for Symmetric route
If the RREQ-Instance corresponding to the RREQ-DIO that arrived at
TargNode has the S bit set to 1, there is a symmetric route both of
whose directions satisfy the Objective Function. Other RREQ-DIOs
might later provide better upward routes. The method of selection
between a qualified symmetric route and an asymmetric route that
might have better performance is implementation-specific and out of
scope.
For a symmetric route, the RREP-DIO message is unicast to the next
hop according to the Address Vector (H=0) or the route entry (H=1);
the DODAG in RREP-Instance does not need to be built. The
RPLInstanceID in the RREP-Instance is paired as defined in
Section 6.3.3. In case the H bit is set to 0, the address vector
from the RREQ-DIO MUST be included in the RREP-DIO.
6.3.2. RREP-DIO for Asymmetric Route
When a RREQ-DIO arrives at a TargNode with the S bit set to 0, the
TargNode MUST build a DODAG in the RREP-Instance corresponding to the
RREQ-DIO rooted at itself, in order to provide OrigNode with a
downstream route to the TargNode. The RREP-DIO message is
transmitted to multicast group all-AODV-RPL-nodes.
6.3.3. RPLInstanceID Pairing
Since the RPLInstanceID is assigned locally (i.e., there is no
coordination between routers in the assignment of RPLInstanceID), the
tuple (OrigNode, TargNode, RPLInstanceID) is needed to uniquely
identify a discovered route. It is possible that multiple route
discoveries with dissimilar Objective Functions are initiated
simultaneously. Thus between the same pair of OrigNode and TargNode,
there can be multiple AODV-RPL route discovery instances. So that
OrigNode and Targnode can avoid any mismatch, they MUST pair the
RREQ-Instance and the RREP-Instance in the same route discovery by
using the RPLInstanceID.
When preparing the RREP-DIO, a TargNode could find the RPLInstanceID
candidate for the RREP-Instance is already occupied by another RPL
Instance from an earlier route discovery operation which is still
active. This unlikely case might happen if two distinct OrigNodes
need routes to the same TargNode, and they happen to use the same
RPLInstanceID for RREQ-Instance. In such cases, the RPLInstanceID of
an already active RREP-Instance MUST NOT be used again for assigning
RPLInstanceID for the later RREP-Instance. If the same RPLInstanceID
were re-used for two distinct DODAGs originated with the same DODAGID
(TargNode address), intermediate routers could not distinguish
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
between these DODAGs (and their associated Objective Functions).
Instead, the RPLInstanceID MUST be replaced by another value so that
the two RREP-instances can be distinguished. In the RREP-DIO option,
the Delta field of the RREP-DIO message (Figure 2) indicates the
value that TargNode adds to the RPLInstanceID in the RREQ-DIO that it
received, to obtain the value of the RPLInstanceID it uses in the
RREP-DIO message. 0 indicates that the RREQ-InstanceID has the same
value as the RPLInstanceID of the RREP message. When the new
RPLInstanceID after incrementation exceeds 255, it rolls over
starting at 0. For example, if the RREQ-InstanceID is 252, and
incremented by 6, the new RPLInstanceID will be 2. Related
operations can be found in Section 6.4. RPLInstanceID collisions do
not occur across RREQ-DIOs; the DODAGID equals the OrigNode address
and is sufficient to disambiguate between DODAGs.
6.4. Receiving and Forwarding Route Reply
Upon receiving a RREP-DIO, a router which already belongs to the
RREP-Instance SHOULD drop the RREP-DIO. Otherwise the router
performs the steps in the following subsections.
6.4.1. Step 1: Receiving and Evaluation
If the Objective Function is not satisfied, the router MUST NOT join
the DODAG; the router MUST discard the RREP-DIO, and does not execute
the remaining steps in this section. An Intermediate Router MUST
discard a RREP if one of its addresses is present in the Address
Vector, and does not execute the remaining steps in this section.
If the S bit of the associated RREQ-Instance is set to 1, the router
MUST proceed to Section 6.4.2.
If the S-bit of the RREQ-Instance is set to 0, the router MUST
determine whether the downward direction of the link (towards the
TargNode) over which the RREP-DIO is received satisfies the Objective
Function, and the router's Rank would not exceed the RankLimit. If
so, the router joins the DODAG of the RREP-Instance. The router that
transmitted the received RREP-DIO is selected as the preferred
parent. Afterwards, other RREP-DIO messages can be received; AODV-
RPL does not specify any action to be taken in such cases.
6.4.2. Step 2: OrigNode or Intermediate Router
The router updates its stored value of the TargNode's sequence number
according to the value provided in the ART option. The router next
checks if one of its addresses is included in the ART Option. If so,
this router is the OrigNode of the route discovery. Otherwise, it is
an intermediate router.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
6.4.3. Step 3: Build Route to TargNode
If the H bit is set to 1, then the router (OrigNode or intermediate)
MUST build a downward route entry towards TargNode which includes at
least the following items: OrigNode Address, RPLInstanceID, TargNode
Address as destination, Next Hop, Lifetime and Sequence Number. For
a symmetric route, the Next Hop in the route entry is the router from
which the RREP-DIO is received. For an asymmetric route, the Next
Hop is the preferred parent in the DODAG of RREP-Instance. The
RPLInstanceID in the route entry MUST be the RREQ-InstanceID (i.e.,
after subtracting the Delta field value from the value of the
RPLInstanceID). The source address is learned from the ART Option,
and the destination address is learned from the DODAGID. The
lifetime is set according to DODAG configuration (i.e., not the L
field) and can be extended when the route is actually used. The
sequence number represents the freshness of the route entry, and is
copied from the Dest SeqNo field of the ART option of the RREP-DIO.
A route entry with same source and destination address, same
RPLInstanceID, but stale sequence number MUST be deleted.
6.4.4. Step 4: RREP Propagation
If the receiver is the OrigNode, it can start transmitting the
application data to TargNode along the path as provided in RREP-
Instance, and processing for the RREP-DIO is complete. Otherwise,
the RREP will be propagated towards OrigNode. If H=0, the
intermediate router MUST include the address of the interface
receiving the RREP-DIO into the address vector. If H=1, according to
the last step the intermediate router has set up a route entry for
TargNode. If the intermediate router has a route to OrigNode, it
uses that route to unicast the RREP-DIO to OrigNode. Otherwise, in
case of a symmetric route, the RREP-DIO message is unicast to the
Next Hop according to the address vector in the RREP-DIO (H=0) or the
local route entry (H=1). Otherwise, in case of an asymmetric route,
the intermediate router transmits the RREP-DIO to multicast group
all-AODV-RPL-nodes. The RPLInstanceID in the transmitted RREP-DIO is
the same as the value in the received RREP-DIO.
7. Gratuitous RREP
In some cases, an Intermediate router that receives a RREQ-DIO
message MAY unicast a "Gratuitous" RREP-DIO message back to OrigNode
before continuing the transmission of the RREQ-DIO towards TargNode.
The Gratuitous RREP allows the OrigNode to start transmitting data to
TargNode sooner. The G bit of the RREP option is provided to
distinguish the Gratuitous RREP-DIO (G=1) sent by the Intermediate
router from the RREP-DIO sent by TargNode (G=0).
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
The gratuitous RREP-DIO MAY be sent out when the Intermediate router
receives a RREQ-DIO for a TargNode, and the router has a pair of
downward and upward routes to the TargNode which also satisfy the
Objective Function and for which the destination sequence number is
at least as large as the sequence number in the RREQ-DIO message.
After unicasting the Gratuitous RREP to the OrigNode, the
Intermediate router then unicasts the RREQ towards TargNode, so that
TargNode will have the advertised route towards OrigNode along with
the RREQ-InstanceID for the RREQ-Instance. An upstream intermediate
router that receives such a G-RREP MUST also generate a G-RREP and
send it further upstream towards OrigNode.
In case of source routing, the intermediate router MUST include the
address vector between the OrigNode and itself in the Gratuitous
RREP. It also includes the address vector in the unicast RREQ-DIO
towards TargNode. Upon reception of the unicast RREQ-DIO, the
TargNode will have a route address vector from itself to the
OrigNode. Then the router MUST include the address vector from the
TargNode to the router itself in the gratuitous RREP-DIO to be
transmitted.
For establishing hop-by-hop routes, the intermediate router MUST
unicast the received RREQ-DIO to the Next Hop on the route. The Next
Hop router along the route MUST build new route entries with the
related RPLInstanceID and DODAGID in the downward direction. This
process repeats at each node until the RREQ-DIO arrives at the
TargNode. Then the TargNode and each router along the path towards
OrigNode MUST unicast the RREP-DIO hop-by-hop towards OrigNode as
specified in Section 6.3.
8. Operation of Trickle Timer
RREQ-Instance/RREP-Instance multicast uses trickle timer operations
[RFC6206] to control RREQ-DIO and RREP-DIO transmissions. The
Trickle control of these DIO transmissions follows the procedures
described in the Section 8.3 of [RFC6550] entitled "DIO
Transmission". If the route is symmetric, the RREP DIO does not need
the Trickle timer mechanism.
9. IANA Considerations
Note to RFC editor:
The sentence "The parenthesized numbers are only suggestions." is to
be removed prior publication.
A Subregistry in this section refers to a named sub-registry of the
"Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" registry.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
AODV-RPL uses the "P2P Route Discovery Mode of Operation" (MOP == 4)
with new Options as specified in this document. Please cite AODV-RPL
and this document as one of the protocols using MOP 4.
IANA is asked to assign three new AODV-RPL options "RREQ", "RREP" and
"ART", as described in Figure 6 from the "RPL Control Message
Options" Subregistry. The parenthesized numbers are only
suggestions.
+-------------+------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-------------+------------------------+---------------+
| TBD2 (0x0B) | RREQ Option | This document |
+-------------+------------------------+---------------+
| TBD3 (0x0C) | RREP Option | This document |
+-------------+------------------------+---------------+
| TBD4 (0x0D) | ART Option | This document |
+-------------+------------------------+---------------+
Figure 6: AODV-RPL Options
IANA is requested to allocate a new permanent multicast address with
link-local scope called all-AODV-RPL-nodes for nodes implementing
this specification.
10. Security Considerations
The security considerations for the operation of AODV-RPL are similar
to those for the operation of RPL (as described in Section 19 of the
RPL specification [RFC6550]). Sections 6.1 and 10 of [RFC6550]
describe RPL's optional security framework, which AODV-RPL relies on
to provide data confidentiality, authentication, replay protection,
and delay protection services. Additional analysis for the security
threats to RPL can be found in [RFC7416].
A router can join a temporary DAG created for a secure AODV-RPL route
discovery only if it can support the security configuration in use
(see Section 6.1 of [RFC6550]), which also specifies the key in use.
It does not matter whether the key is preinstalled or dynamically
acquired. The router must have the key in use before it can join the
DAG being created for secure route discovery.
If a rogue router knows the key for the security configuration in
use, it can join the secure AODV-RPL route discovery and cause
various types of damage. Such a rogue router could advertise false
information in its DIOs in order to include itself in the discovered
route(s). It could generate bogus RREQ-DIO, and RREP-DIO messages
carrying bad routes or maliciously modify genuine RREP-DIO messages
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
it receives. A rogue router acting as the OrigNode could launch
denial-of-service attacks against the LLN deployment by initiating
fake AODV-RPL route discoveries. When rogue routers might be
present, RPL's preinstalled mode of operation, where the key to use
for route discovery is preinstalled, SHOULD be used.
When a RREQ-DIO message uses the source routing option by setting the
H bit to 0, a rogue router may populate the Address Vector field with
a set of addresses that may result in the RREP-DIO traveling in a
routing loop.
If a rogue router is able to forge a gratuitous RREP, it could mount
denial-of-service attacks.
11. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Pascal Thubert, Rahul Jadhav, and Lijo Thomas for
their support and valuable inputs. The authors specially thank
Lavanya H.M for implementing AODV-RPl in Contiki and conducting
extensive simulation studies.
The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback and
comments from the following people, in alphabetical order: Roman
Danyliw, Lars Eggert, Benjamin Kaduk, Tero Kivinen, Erik Kline,
Murray Kucherawy, Warren Kumari, Francesca Palombini, Alvaro Retana,
Ines Robles, John Scudder, Meral Shirazipour, Peter Van der Stok,
Eric Vyncke, and Robert Wilton.
12. References
12.1. 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>.
[RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.
[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>.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
[RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>.
[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>.
12.2. Informative References
[aodv-tot] Perkins, C.E. and E.M. Royer, "Ad-hoc On-demand Distance
Vector Routing", Proceedings WMCSA'99. Second IEEE
Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications ,
February 1999.
[co-ioam] Rashmi Ballamajalu, Anand, S.V.R., and Malati Hegde, "Co-
iOAM: In-situ Telemetry Metadata Transport for Resource
Constrained Networks within IETF Standards Framework",
2018 10th International Conference on Communication
Systems & Networks (COMSNETS) pp.573-576, January 2018.
[contiki] Contiki contributors, "The Contiki Open Source OS for the
Internet of Things (Contiki Version 2.7)", November 2013,
<https://github.com/contiki-os/contiki>.
[Contiki-ng]
Contiki-NG contributors, "Contiki-NG: The OS for Next
Generation IoT Devices (Contiki-NG Version 4.6)", December
2020, <https://github.com/contiki-ng/contiki-ng>.
[cooja] Contiki/Cooja contributors, "Cooja Simulator for Wireless
Sensor Networks (Contiki/Cooja Version 2.7)", November
2013, <https://github.com/contiki-
os/contiki/tree/master/tools/cooja>.
[empirical-study]
Prasant Misra, Nadeem Ahmed, and Sanjay Jha, "An empirical
study of asymmetry in low-power wireless links", IEEE
Communications Magazine (Volume: 50, Issue: 7), July 2012.
[Link_Asymmetry]
Lifeng Sang, Anish Arora, and Hongwei Zhang, "On Link
Asymmetry and One-way Estimation in Wireless Sensor
Networks", ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, Volume 6
Issue 2 pp.1-25, February 2010,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/1689239.1689242>.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
[low-power-wireless]
Kannan Srinivasan, Prabal Dutta, Arsalan Tavakoli, and
Philip Levis, "An empirical study of low-power wireless",
ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (Volume 6 Issue 2
pp.1-49), February 2010,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/1689239.1689246>.
[RFC3561] Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On-
Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3561, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3561>.
[RFC6687] Tripathi, J., Ed., de Oliveira, J., Ed., and JP. Vasseur,
Ed., "Performance Evaluation of the Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6687,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6687, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6687>.
[RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and
J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>.
[RFC6998] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Brandt, A., and J. Martocci,
"A Mechanism to Measure the Routing Metrics along a Point-
to-Point Route in a Low-Power and Lossy Network",
RFC 6998, DOI 10.17487/RFC6998, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6998>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.
[RFC7548] Ersue, M., Ed., Romascanu, D., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Sehgal, "Management of Networks with Constrained Devices:
Use Cases", RFC 7548, DOI 10.17487/RFC7548, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7548>.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.
[RFC9010] Thubert, P., Ed. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL
(Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks)
Leaves", RFC 9010, DOI 10.17487/RFC9010, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9010>.
[RFC9030] Thubert, P., Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-
Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)",
RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9030>.
Appendix A. Example: Using ETX/RSSI Values to determine value of S bit
The combination of Received Signal Strength Indication(downstream)
(RSSI) and Expected Number of Transmissions(upstream) (ETX) has been
tested to determine whether a link is symmetric or asymmetric at
intermediate routers. We present two methods to obtain an ETX value
from RSSI measurement.
Method 1: In the first method, we constructed a table measuring RSSI
vs ETX using the Cooja simulation [cooja] setup in the Contiki OS
environment[contiki]. We used Contiki-2.7 running 6LoWPAN/RPL
protocol stack for the simulations. For approximating the number
of packet drops based on the RSSI values, we implemented simple
logic that drops transmitted packets with certain pre-defined
ratios before handing over the packets to the receiver. The
packet drop ratio is implemented as a table lookup of RSSI ranges
mapping to different packet drop ratios with lower RSSI ranges
resulting in higher values. While this table has been defined for
the purpose of capturing the overall link behavior, it is highly
recommended to conduct physical radio measurement experiments, in
general. By keeping the receiving node at different distances, we
let the packets experience different packet drops as per the
described method. The ETX value computation is done by another
module which is part of RPL Objective Function implementation.
Since ETX value is reflective of the extent of packet drops, it
allowed us to prepare a useful ETX vs RSSI table. ETX versus RSSI
values obtained in this way may be used as explained below:
Source -------> NodeA -------> NodeB -----> Destination
Figure 7: Communication link from Source to Destination
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
+=========================+========================================+
| RSSI at NodeA for NodeB | Expected ETX at NodeA for NodeB->NodeA |
+=========================+========================================+
| > -60 | 150 |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| -70 to -60 | 192 |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| -80 to -70 | 226 |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| -90 to -80 | 662 |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| -100 to -90 | 3840 |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
Table 1: Selection of S bit based on Expected ETX value
Method 2: One could also make use of the function
guess_etx_from_rssi() defined in the 6LoWPAN/RPL protocol stack of
Contiki-ng OS [Contiki-ng] to obtain RSSI-ETX mapping. This
function outputs ETX value ranging between 128 and 3840 for -60 <=
rssi <= -89. The function description is beyond the scope of this
document.
We tested the operations in this specification by making the
following experiment, using the above parameters. In our experiment,
a communication link is considered as symmetric if the ETX value of
NodeA->NodeB and NodeB->NodeA (see Figure 7) are within, say, a 1:3
ratio. This ratio should be understood as determining the link's
symmetric/asymmetric nature. NodeA can typically know the ETX value
in the direction of NodeA -> NodeB but it has no direct way of
knowing the value of ETX from NodeB->NodeA. Using physical testbed
experiments and realistic wireless channel propagation models, one
can determine a relationship between RSSI and ETX representable as an
expression or a mapping table. Such a relationship in turn can be
used to estimate ETX value at nodeA for link NodeB--->NodeA from the
received RSSI from NodeB. Whenever nodeA determines that the link
towards the nodeB is bi-directional asymmetric then the S bit is set
to 0. Afterwards, the link from NodeA to Destination remains
designated as asymmetric and the S bit remains set to 0.
Determination of asymmetry versus bidirectionality remains a topic of
lively discussion in the IETF.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Appendix B. Some Example AODV-RPL Message Flows
This appendix provides some example message flows showing RREQ and
RREP establishing symmetric and asymmetric routes. Also, examples
for the use of RREP_WAIT and GRREP are included. In the examples,
router (O) is to be understood as performing the role of OrigNode.
Router (T) is to be understood as performing the role of TargNode.
Routers (R) are intermediate routers that are performing AODV-RPL
functions in order to discover one or more suitable routes between
(O) and (T).
B.1. Example control message flows in symmetric and asymmetric networks
In the following diagram, RREQ messages are multicast from router (O)
in order to discover routes to and from router (T). The RREQ control
messages flow outward from (O). Each router along the way
establishes a single RREQ-Instance identified by RREQ-InstanceID even
if multiple RREQs are received with the same RREQ-InstanceID. In the
top half of the diagram, the routers are able to offer a symmetric
route at each hop of the path from (O) to (T). When (T) receives a
RREQ, it is then able to transmit data packets to (O). Router (T)
then prepares to send a RREP along the symmetric path that would
enable router (O) to send packets to router (T).
(R) ---RREQ(S=1)--->(R) ---RREQ(S=1)--->(R)
^ |
| |
RREQ(S=1) RREQ(S=1)
| |
| v
(O) --------->(R) --------->(R)-------->(T)
/ \ RREQ RREQ RREQ ^
| \ (S=1) (S=0) (S=0) |
| \ /
RREQ | \ RREQ (S=1) RREQ (S=0)
(S=0) | \ /
v \ RREQ (S=0) /
(R) ---->(R)------>(R)----.....--->(R)
Figure 8: AODV-RPL RREQ message flow example when symmetric path
available
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
In the following diagram which results from the above RREQ message
transmission, a symmetric route is available from (T) to router (O)
via the routers in the top half of the diagram. RREP messages are
sent via unicast along the symmetric route. Since the RREP message
is transmitted via unicast, no RREP messages are sent by router (T)
to the routers in the bottom half of the diagram.
(R)<------RREP----- (R)<------RREP----- (R)
| ^
| |
RREP RREP
| |
v |
(O) ----------(R) ----------(R) --------(T)
/ \ |
| \ |
| \ (no RREP messages sent) /
| \ /
| \ /
| \ /
(R) -----(R)-------(R)----.....----(R)
Figure 9: AODV-RPL RREP message flow example when symmetric path
available
In the following diagram, RREQ messages are multicast from router (O)
in order to discover routes to and from router (T) as before. As
shown, no symmetric route is available from (O) to (T).
(R) ---RREQ(S=0)--->(R) ---RREQ(S=0)--->(R)
^ |
| |
RREQ(S=1) RREQ(S=0)
| |
| v
(O) --------->(R) --------->(R)-------->(T)
^ \ RREQ RREQ RREQ | \
| \ (S=1) (S=0) (S=0) | |
| \ / |
| RREQ (S=1) RREQ (S=0) / (R)
| \ / |
| \ RREQ (S=0) / /
(R) ---->(R)------>(R)----.....----->(R)---
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Figure 10: AODV-RPL RREQ message flow when symmetric path unavailable
Upon receiving the RREQ in Figure 10, Router (T) then prepares to
send a RREP that would enable router (O) to send packets to router
(T). In Figure 10, since no symmetric route is available from (T) to
router (O), RREP messages are sent via multicast to all neighboring
routers.
(R)<------RREP----- (R)<------RREP----- (R)
| |
| |
RREP RREP
| |
| |
v v
(O)<--------- (R)<--------- (R)<------- (T)
^ \ RREP RREP RREP | \
| \ | |RREP
| \ / |
RREP | \ RREP RREP / (R)
| \ / |
| \ / /
(R)<----- (R)<----- (R)<---.....---- (R)< - RREP
RREP RREP RREP
Figure 11: AODV-RPL RREQ and RREP Instances for Asymmetric Links
B.2. Example RREP_WAIT handling
In Figure 12, the first RREQ arrives at (T). This triggers TargNode
to start RREP_WAIT_TIME timer.
(O) --------->(R) --------->(R)-------->(T)
RREQ RREQ RREQ
(S=1) (S=0) (S=0)
Figure 12: TargNode starts RREP_WAIT
In Figure 13, another RREQ arrives before RREP_WAIT_TIME timer is
expired. It could be preferable compared the previously received
RREP that caused the RREP_WAIT_TIME timer to be set.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
(O) (T)
/ \ ^
| \ |
| \ /
RREQ | \ RREQ (S=1) RREQ (S=0)
(S=0) | \ /
v \ RREQ (S=0) /
(R) ---->(R)------>(R)----.....--->(R)
Figure 13: Waiting TargNode receives preferable RREQ
In Figure 14, the RREP_WAIT_TIME timer expires. TargNode selects the
path with S=1.
(R) ---RREQ(S=1)--->(R) ---RREQ(S=1)--->(R)
^ |
| |
RREQ(S=1) RREQ(S=1)
| |
| v
(O) (T)
Figure 14: RREP_WAIT expires at TargNode
B.3. Example GRREP handling
In Figure 15, R* has upward and downward routes to TargNode (T) that
satisfies OF of RPL Instance originated by OrigNode (O) and
destination sequence number is at least as large as the sequence
number in the RREQ message.
(R) ---RREQ(S=1)--->(R) ---RREQ(S=0)--->(R)
^ |
| |
RREQ(S=1) RREQ(S=0)
| |
| v
(O) --------->(R) --------->(R)-------->(T)
/ \ RREQ RREQ RREQ ^
| \ (S=1) (S=0) (S=0) |
| \ /
RREQ | \ RREQ (S=1) /
(S=0) | \ /
v \ v
(R) ---->(R*)<------>(R)<----....--->(R)
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
Figure 15: RREP triggers GRREP at Intermediate Node
In Figure 16, R* transmits the G-RREP DIO back to OrigNode (O) and
forwards the incoming RREQ towards (T).
(O) (T)
\ ^
\ |
\ (RREQ) /
\ G-RREP DIO /
\ /
\ (RREQ) (RREQ) /
(R*)------>(R)----....--->(R)
Figure 16: Intermediate Node initiates GRREP
Appendix C. Changelog
Note to the RFC Editor: please remove this section before
publication.
C.1. Changes from version 17 to version 18
* Replaced "on-demand nature of AODV route discovery is natural" by
"on-demand property of AODV route discovery is useful" in
Section 1.
* In Section 6.2.4, instead of describing an option to "associate
the Address Vector of the symmetric route ..." to the RREQ-
Instance, reformulated the description as an option to "include
the Address Vector of the symmetric route ..." as part of the
RREQ-Instance in Section 6.2.4.
* Changed from v2-style RFC citations to using Xinclude as specified
in [RFC7991].
C.2. Changes from version 16 to version 17
* Added new Terminology definitions for RREQ, RREP, OF.
* Added claryifying detail about some kinds of improved routes
discoverable by AODV-RPL.
* Added forward reference explaining how RREP-InstanceID is matched
with the proper RREQ-InstanceID.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
* Added explanation about the function of the 'D' bit of the
RPLInstanceID.
* Provided detail about why a node should leave the RREQ-Instance
after the specified amount of time.
* Specified that "An upstream intermediate router that receives such
a G-RREP MUST also generate a G-RREP and send it further upstream
towards OrigNode."
* Added more illustrative diagrams in new Appendix B. Example
diagrams show control message flows for RREQ and for RREP in cases
when symmetric route is either available or not available. The
use of RREP_WAIT and GRREP is also illustrated in other new
diagrams.
* Included the reasoning for using intersections of RREQ target
lists in Section 6.2.2.
* Various editorial improvements and clarifications.
C.3. Changes from version 15 to version 16
* Modified language to be more explicit about when AODV-RPL is
likely to produce preferable routes compared to routing protocols
that are constrained to traverse common ancestors.
* Added explanation that the way AODV-RPL uses the Rank function
does not express a distance or a path cost to the root.
* Added a citation suggesting AODV-RPL's likely improvements in
routing costs.
C.4. Changes from version 14 to version 15
* Clarified that AODV-RPL treats the addresses of multiple
interfaces on the same router as the addresses of independent
routers.
* Added details about cases when proactive route establishment is
preferable to AODV-RPL's reactive route establishment.
* Various editorial stylistic improvements.
* Added citations about techniques that can be used for evaluating a
link's state.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
* Clarified that the determination of TargNode status and
determination of a usable route to OrigNode does not depend on
whether or not S == 0.
* Clarified that AODV-RPL does not specify any action to be taken
when multiple RREP-DIO messages are received and the S-bit of the
RREQ-Instance is 0.
C.5. Changes from version 13 to version 14
* Provided more details about scenarios naturally supporting the
choice of AODV-RPL as a routing protocol
* Added new informative references [RFC6687], [RFC9010]) that
describe the value provided by peer-to-peer routing.
* Requested IANA to allocate a new multicast group to enable clean
separation of AODV-RPL operation from previous routing protocols
in the RPL family.
* Cited [RFC6550] as the origination of the definition of DIO
* Defined "hop-by-hop route" as a route created using RPL's storing
mode.
* Defined new configuration variable REJOIN_REENABLE.
* Improved definition for RREQ-InstanceID. Created analogous
definition for RREP-InstanceID=(RPLInstanceID, TargNode_IPaddr)
* Improved definition of source routing
* Clarified that the Border Router (BR) in Figure 4 does not imply
that AODV does not a require a BR as a protocol entity.
* Provided more guidelines about factors to be considered by
OrigNode when selecting a value for the 'L' field.
* Described the disadvantage of not keeping track of the Address
Vector in the RREQ-Instance.
* Specified that in non-storing mode an intermediate node has to
record the IP addresses of both incoming and outgoing interfaces
into the Address Vector, when those interfaces have different IP
addresses.
* Added three informative references to describe relevant details
about evaluating link assymetry.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
* Clarified details about Gratuitous RREP.
C.6. Changes from version 12 to version 13
* Changed name of "Shift" field to be the "Delta" field.
* Specified that if a node does not have resources, it MUST drop the
RREQ.
* Changed name of MaxUseRank to MaxUsefulRank.
* Revised a sentence that was not clear about when a TargNode can
delay transmission of the RREP in response to a RREQ.
* Provided advice about running AODV-RPL at same time as P2P-RPL or
native RPL.
* Small reorganization and enlargement of the description of Trickle
time operation in Section 8.
* Added definition for "RREQ-InstanceID" to Terminology section.
* Specified that once a node leaves an RREQ-Instance, it MUST NOT
rejoin the same RREQ-Instance.
C.7. Changes from version 11 to version 12
* Defined RREP_WAIT_TIME for asymmetric as well as symmetric
handling of RREP-DIO.
* Clarifed link-local multicast transmission to use link-local
multicast group all-RPL nodes.
* Identified some security threats more explicitly.
* Specified that the pairing between RREQ-DIO and RREP-DIO happens
at OrigNode and TargNode. Intermediate routers do not necessarily
maintain the pairing.
* When RREQ-DIO is received with H=0 and S=1, specified that
intermediate routers MAY store symmetric Address Vector
information for possible use when a matchine RREP-DIO is received.
* Specified that AODV-RPL uses the "P2P Route Discovery Mode of
Operation" (MOP == 4), instead of requesting the allocation of a
new MOP. Clarified that there is no conflict with [RFC6997].
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
* Fixed several important typos and improved language in numerous
places.
* Reorganized the steps in the specification for handling RREQ and
RREP at an intermediate router, to more closely follow the order
of processing actions to be taken by the router.
C.8. Changes from version 10 to version 11
* Numerous editorial improvements.
* Replace Floor((7+(Prefix Length))/8) by Ceil(Prefix Length/8) for
simplicity and ease of understanding.
* Use "L field" instead of "L bit" since L is a two-bit field.
* Improved the procedures in section 6.2.1.
* Define the S bit of the data structure a router uses to represent
whether or not the RREQ instance is for a symmetric or an
asymmetric route. This replaces text in the document that was a
holdover from earlier versions in which the RREP had an S bit for
that purpose.
* Quote terminology from AODV that has been identified as possibly
originating in language reflecting various kinds of bias against
certain cultures.
* Clarified the relationship of AODV-RPL to RPL.
* Eliminated the "Point-to-Point" terminology to avoid suggesting
only a single link.
* Modified certain passages to better reflect the possibility that a
router might have multiple IP addresses.
* "Rsv" replaced by "X X" for reserved field.
* Added mandates for reserved fields, and replaces some ambiguous
language phraseology by mandates.
* Replaced "retransmit" terminology by more correct "propagate"
terminology.
* Added text about determining link symmetry near Figure 5.
* Mandated checking the Address Vector to avoid routing loops.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
* Improved specification for use of the Delta value in
Section 6.3.3.
* Corrected the wrong use of RREQ-Instance to be RREP-Instance.
* Referred to Subregistry values instead of Registry values in
Section 9.
* Sharpened language in Section 10, eliminated misleading use of
capitalization in the words "Security Configuration".
* Added acknowledgements and contributors.
C.9. Changes from version 09 to version 10
* Changed the title for brevity and to remove acronyms.
* Added "Note to the RFC Editor" in Section 9.
* Expanded DAO and P2MP in Section 1.
* Reclassified [RFC6998] and [RFC7416] as Informational.
* SHOULD changed to MUST in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2.
* Several editorial improvements and clarifications.
C.10. Changes from version 08 to version 09
* Removed section "Link State Determination" and put some of the
relevant material into Section 5.
* Cited security section of [RFC6550] as part of the RREP-DIO
message description in Section 2.
* SHOULD has been changed to MUST in Section 4.2.
* Expanded the terms ETX and RSSI in Section 5.
* Section 6.4 has been expanded to provide a more precise
explanation of the handling of route reply.
* Added [RFC7416] in the Security Considerations (Section 10) for
RPL security threats. Cited [RFC6550] for authenticated mode of
operation.
* Appendix A has been mostly re-written to describe methods to
determine whether or not the S bit should be set to 1.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
* For consistency, adjusted several mandates from SHOULD to MUST and
from SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT.
* Numerous editorial improvements and clarifications.
C.11. Changes from version 07 to version 08
* Instead of describing the need for routes to "fulfill the
requirements", specify that routes need to "satisfy the Objective
Function".
* Removed all normative dependencies on [RFC6997]
* Rewrote Section 10 to avoid duplication of language in cited
specifications.
* Added a new section "Link State Determination" with text and
citations to more fully describe how implementations determine
whether links are symmetric.
* Modified text comparing AODV-RPL to other protocols to emphasize
the need for AODV-RPL instead of the problems with the other
protocols.
* Clarified that AODV-RPL uses some of the base RPL specification
but does not require an instance of RPL to run.
* Improved capitalization, quotation, and spelling variations.
* Specified behavior upon reception of a RREQ-DIO or RREP-DIO
message for an already existing DODAGID (e.g, Section 6.4).
* Fixed numerous language issues in IANA Considerations Section 9.
* For consistency, adjusted several mandates from SHOULD to MUST and
from SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT.
* Numerous editorial improvements and clarifications.
C.12. Changes from version 06 to version 07
* Added definitions for all fields of the ART option (see
Section 4.3). Modified definition of Prefix Length to prohibit
Prefix Length values greater than 127.
* Modified the language from [RFC6550] Target Option definition so
that the trailing zero bits of the Prefix Length are no longer
described as "reserved".
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
* Reclassified [RFC3561] and [RFC6998] as Informative.
* Added citation for [RFC8174] to Terminology section.
C.13. Changes from version 05 to version 06
* Added Security Considerations based on the security mechanisms
defined in [RFC6550].
* Clarified the nature of improvements due to P2P route discovery
versus bidirectional asymmetric route discovery.
* Editorial improvements and corrections.
C.14. Changes from version 04 to version 05
* Add description for sequence number operations.
* Extend the residence duration L in section 4.1.
* Change AODV-RPL Target option to ART option.
C.15. Changes from version 03 to version 04
* Updated RREP option format. Remove the T bit in RREP option.
* Using the same RPLInstanceID for RREQ and RREP, no need to update
[RFC6550].
* Explanation of Delta field in RREP.
* Multiple target options handling during transmission.
C.16. Changes from version 02 to version 03
* Include the support for source routing.
* Import some features from [RFC6997], e.g., choice between hop-by-
hop and source routing, the L field which determines the duration
of residence in the DAG, RankLimit, etc.
* Define new target option for AODV-RPL, including the Destination
Sequence Number in it. Move the TargNode address in RREQ option
and the OrigNode address in RREP option into ADOV-RPL Target
Option.
* Support route discovery for multiple targets in one RREQ-DIO.
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
* New RPLInstanceID pairing mechanism.
Appendix D. Contributors
Abdur Rashid Sangi
Huaiyin Institute of Technology
No.89 North Beijing Road, Qinghe District
Huaian 223001
P.R. China
Email: sangi_bahrian@yahoo.com
Malati Hegde
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012
India
Email: malati@iisc.ac.in
Mingui Zhang
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
Beijing 100095
P.R. China
Email: zhangmingui@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Charles E. Perkins
Lupin Lodge
Los Gatos, 95033
United States
Email: charliep@lupinlodge.com
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft AODV-RPL August 2023
S.V.R Anand
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012
India
Email: anandsvr@iisc.ac.in
Satish Anamalamudi
SRM University-AP
Amaravati Campus
Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh 522 502
India
Email: satishnaidu80@gmail.com
Bing Liu
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
Beijing
100095
China
Email: remy.liubing@huawei.com
Perkins, et al. Expires 17 February 2024 [Page 44]
