Internet DRAFT - draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-ps
draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-ps
ROLL WG R. Jadhav
INTERNET-DRAFT R. Sahoo
Intended Status: Informational Z. Cao
Expires: August 8, 2016 Huawei Tech
H. Deng
China Mobile
February 25, 2016
No-Path DAO Problem Statement
draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-ps-00
Abstract
This document describes the problems associated with the use of No-
Path DAO messaging in RPL.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2016 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-00 February 25, 2016
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
1.1. Current No-Path DAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Cases when No-Path DAO may be used . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Why No-Path DAO is important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Problems with current No-Path DAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Lost NP-DAO due to Link break to the previous parent . . . 5
2.2. Invalidate routes to dependent nodes of the switching
node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Route downtime caused by asynchronous operation of NPDAO
and DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements for the No-Path DAO Optimization . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Req#1: Tolerant to the link failures to the previous
parents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Req#2: Support of removal of entries to the dependent
nodes of the switching node. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Req#3: No disruption of downstream reachability to the
node while sending NP-DAO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2016 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-00 February 25, 2016
1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing
scheme. The specification has an optional messaging in the form of
DAO messages using which the 6LBR can learn route towards any of the
nodes. In storing mode, DAO messages would result in routing entries
been created on all intermediate hops from the node's parent all the
way towards the 6LBR.
[RFC6550] also allows use of No-Path DAO (NPDAO) messaging to
invalidate a routing path and thus releasing of any resources
utilized on that path. A No-Path DAO is a DAO message with route
lifetime of zero, signaling route invalidation for the given target.
This document studies the problems associated with the current use of
No-Path DAO messaging, which creates route inefficiency and
inconsistence. This document also discusses the requirements for an
optimized No-Path DAO messaging scheme.
1.1. Current No-Path DAO messaging
[RFC6550] introduced No-Path DAO messaging in the storing mode so
that the node switching its current parent can inform its parents and
ancestors to invalidate the existing route. Subsequently parents or
ancestors would release any resources (such as the routing entry) it
maintains on behalf of that child node. The No-Path DAO message
always traverses the RPL tree in upward direction, originating at the
target node itself.
For the rest of this document consider the following topology:
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2016 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-00 February 25, 2016
(6LBR)
|
|
|
(A)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(G) (H)
| |
| |
| |
(B) (C)
\ ;
\ ;
\ ;
(D)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(E) (F)
Figure 1: Sample Topology
Node (D) is connected via preferred parent (B). (D) has an alternate
path via (C) towards the BR. Node (A) is the common ancestor for (D)
for paths through (B)-(G) and (C)-(H). When (D) switches from (B) to
(C), [RFC6550] suggests sending No-Path DAO to (B) and regular DAO to
(C).
1.2. Cases when No-Path DAO may be used
There are following cases in which a node switches its parent and may
employ No-Path DAO messaging:
Case I: Current parent becomes unavailable because of transient or
permanent link or parent node failure.
Case II: The node finds a better parent node i.e. the metrics of
another parent is better than its current parent.
Case III: The node switches to a new parent whom it "thinks" has a
better metric but does not in reality.
The usual steps of operation when the node switches the parent is
that the node sends a No-Path DAO message via its current parent to
invalidate its current route and subsequently it tries to establish a
new routing path by sending a new DAO via its new parent.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2016 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-00 February 25, 2016
1.3. Why No-Path DAO is important?
Nodes in LLNs may be resource constrained. There is limited memory
available and routing entry records are the one of the primary
elements occupying dynamic memory in the nodes. Route invalidation
helps 6LR nodes to decide which entries could be discarded to better
achieve resource utilization in case of contention. Thus it becomes
necessary to have efficient route invalidation mechanism. Also note
that a single parent switch may result in a "sub-tree" switching from
one parent to another. Thus the route invalidation needs to be done
on behalf of the sub-tree and not the switching node alone. In the
above example, when Node (D) switches parent, the route invalidation
needs to be done for (D), (E) and (F). Thus without efficient route
invalidation, a 6LR may have to hold a lot of unwanted route entries.
1.4. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Common Ancestor node: 6LR node which is the first common node on the
old and new path for the child node.
Current parent: Parent 6LR node before switching to the new path
New parent: Parent 6LR node after switching to the new path
NPDAO: No-Path DAO. A DAO message which has target with lifetime 0.
Reverse NPDAO: A No-Path DAO message which traverses downstream in
the network.
Regular DAO: A DAO message with non-zero lifetime.
This document also uses terminology described in [RFC6550].
2. Problems with current No-Path DAO messaging
We will confront the following problems when using the current NP-DAO
messaging.
2.1. Lost NP-DAO due to Link break to the previous parent
When the node switches its parent, the NPDAO is to be sent via its
previous parent and a regular DAO via its new parent. In cases where
the node switches its parent because of transient or permanent parent
link/node failure then the NPDAO message is bound to fail. [RFC6550]
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2016 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-00 February 25, 2016
assumes communication link with the previous parent for No-Path DAO
messaging.
[RFC6550] mentions use of route lifetime to remove unwanted routes in
case the routes could not be refreshed. But route lifetimes in case
of LLNs could be substantially high and thus the route entries would
be stuck for long.
2.2. Invalidate routes to dependent nodes of the switching node
No-path DAO is sent by the node who has switched the parent but it
does not work for the dependent child nodes below it. The
specification does not specify how route invalidation will work for
sub-childs, resulting in stale routing entries on behalf of the sub-
childs on the previous route. The only way for 6LR to invalidate the
route entries for dependent nodes would be to use route lifetime
expiry which could be substantially high for LLNs. In the example
topology, when Node (D) switches its parent, Node (D) generates an
NPDAO on its behalf. Post switching, Node (D) transmits a DIO with
incremented DTSN so that child nodes, node (E) and (F), generate DAOs
to trigger route update on the new path for themselves. There is no
NPDAO generated by these child nodes through the previous path
resulting in stale entries on nodes (B) and (G) for nodes (E) and
(F).
2.3. Route downtime caused by asynchronous operation of NPDAO and DAO
A switching node may generate both an NPDAO and DAO via two different
paths at almost the same time. There is a possibility that an NPDAO
generated may invalidate the previous route and the regular DAO sent
via the new path gets lost on the way. This may result in route
downtime thus impacting downward traffic for the switching node. In
the example topology, consider Node (D) switches from parent (B) to
(C) because the metrics of the path via (C) are better. Note that the
previous path via (B) may still be available (albeit at relatively
bad metrics). An NPDAO sent from previous route may invalidate the
existing route whereas there is no way to determine whether the new
DAO has successfully updated the route entries on the new path.
An implementation technique to avoid this problem is to further delay
the route invalidation by a fixed time interval after receiving an
NPDAO, considering the time taken for the new path to be established.
Coming up with such a time interval is tricky since the new route may
also not be available and it may subsequently require more parent
switches to establish a new path.
3. Requirements for the No-Path DAO Optimization
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2016 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-00 February 25, 2016
We identify the following requirements for the NP-DAO optimization.
3.1. Req#1: Tolerant to the link failures to the previous parents.
When the switching node send the NP-DAO message to the previous
parent, it is normal that the link to the previous parent is prone to
failure. Therefore, it is required that the NP-DAO message MUST be
tolerant to the link failure during the switching.
3.2. Req#2: Support of removal of entries to the dependent nodes of the
switching node.
While switching the parent node and sending NP-DAO message, it is
required that the routing entries to the dependent nodes of the
switching node will be updated accordingly on the previous parents
and other relevant upstream nodes.
3.3. Req#3: No disruption of downstream reachability to the node while
sending NP-DAO.
While sending the NP-DAO and DAO messages, it is possible that the
NP-DAO successfully invalidates the previous path, while the newly
sent DAO gets lost (new path not set up successfully). This will
result into downstream unreachability to the current switching node.
Therefore, it is desirable that the NP-DAO is synchronized with the
DAO to avoid the risk of routing downtime.
4. Security Considerations
This draft is a problem statement, and therefore, does not introduce
any new security risks.
5. IANA Considerations
Not applicable to this document.
6. References
6.1. 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.
[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
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2016 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-00 February 25, 2016
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, DOI
10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012.
[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.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC5548] Dohler, M., Ed., Watteyne, T., Ed., Winter, T., Ed., and
D. Barthel, Ed., "Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power
and Lossy Networks", RFC 5548, May 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Rahul Arvind Jadhav
Huawei Tech,
Kundalahalli Village,
Bangalore, India
EMail: rahul.jadhav@huawei.com
Rabi Narayan Sahoo
Huawei Tech,
Kundalahalli Village,
Bangalore, India
EMail: rabinarayans@huawei.com
Zhen Cao
Huawei Tech,
Beijing, China
EMail: zhen.cao@huawei.com
Hui Deng
China Mobile,
Beijing, China
EMail: denghui@chinamobile.com
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2016 [Page 8]
