draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-02.txt   draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-03.txt 
6MAN J. Hui 6MAN J. Hui
Internet-Draft Arch Rock Corporation Internet-Draft Arch Rock Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track JP. Vasseur Intended status: Standards Track JP. Vasseur
Expires: August 12, 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc Expires: September 30, 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc
February 8, 2011 March 29, 2011
RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams
draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-02 draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-03
Abstract Abstract
The RPL protocol requires data-plane datagrams to carry RPL routing The RPL protocol requires data-plane datagrams to carry RPL routing
information that is processed by RPL routers when forwarding those information that is processed by RPL routers when forwarding those
datagrams. This document describes the RPL option for use within a datagrams. This document describes the RPL option for use within a
RPL domain. RPL domain.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 5, line 23 skipping to change at page 5, line 23
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len | | Option Type | Opt Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|O|R|F|0|0|0|0|0| RPLInstanceID | SenderRank | |O|R|F|0|0|0|0|0| RPLInstanceID | SenderRank |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (sub-TLVs) | | (sub-TLVs) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: RPL Option Figure 1: RPL Option
Option Type: TBD Option Type: TBD by IANA.
Opt Data Len: 8-bit field indicating the length of the option, in Opt Data Len: 8-bit field indicating the length of the option, in
octets, excluding the Option Type and Opt Data Len fields. octets, excluding the Option Type and Opt Data Len fields.
Down 'O': 1-bit flag as defined in Section 11 of Down 'O': 1-bit flag as defined in Section 11 of
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
Rank-Error 'R': 1-bit flag as defined in Section 11 of Rank-Error 'R': 1-bit flag as defined in Section 11 of
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
skipping to change at page 11, line 14 skipping to change at page 11, line 14
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to reserve a new value in the Destination Options IANA is requested to reserve a new value in the Destination Options
and Hop-by-Hop Options registry. The proposed value to be confirmed and Hop-by-Hop Options registry. The proposed value to be confirmed
by IANA is: by IANA is:
Hex Value Binary Value Hex Value Binary Value
act chg rest Description Reference act chg rest Description Reference
--------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ---------- --------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------
0x6b 01 1 01011 RPL Option [RFCthis] TBD 01 1 TBD RPL Option [RFCthis]
As specified in [RFC2460], the first two bits indicate that the IPv6 As specified in [RFC2460], the first two bits indicate that the IPv6
node MUST discard the packet if it doesn't recognize the option type, node MUST discard the packet if it doesn't recognize the option type,
and the third bit indicates that the Option Data may change en-route. and the third bit indicates that the Option Data may change en-route.
The remaining bits serve to as the option type are are '01011' (to be The remaining bits serve as the option type and are TBD by IANA.
confirmed by IANA).
IANA is requested to create a registry called RPL-option-TLV, for the IANA is requested to create a registry called RPL-option-TLV, for the
TLVs carried in the RPL Option header. New codes may be allocated TLVs carried in the RPL Option header. New codes may be allocated
only by IETF Review [RFC5226]. The type field is an 8-bit field only by IETF Review [RFC5226]. The type field is an 8-bit field
whose value be between 0 and 255, inclusive. whose value be between 0 and 255, inclusive.
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
This option may be used a several potential attacks since routers may This option may be used to mount several potential attacks since
be flooded by bogus datagram containing the RPL option. It is thus routers may be flooded by bogus datagram containing the RPL option.
RECOMMENDED for routers to implement a rate limiter for datagrams It is thus RECOMMENDED for routers to implement a rate limiter for
using the RPL Option. datagrams using the RPL Option.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen, T., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., and J. Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., and J.
Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and
Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-18 (work in Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19 (work in
progress), February 2011. progress), March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle] [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle]
Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko, Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-08 (work "The Trickle Algorithm", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-08 (work
in progress), January 2011. in progress), January 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
skipping to change at page 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 13, line 45
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.hui-6man-rpl-headers] [I-D.hui-6man-rpl-headers]
Hui, J., Thubert, P., and J. Vasseur, "Using RPL Headers Hui, J., Thubert, P., and J. Vasseur, "Using RPL Headers
Without IP-in-IP", draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00 (work in Without IP-in-IP", draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00 (work in
progress), July 2010. progress), July 2010.
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology] [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-04 (work in Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-05 (work in
progress), September 2010. progress), March 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jonathan W. Hui Jonathan W. Hui
Arch Rock Corporation Arch Rock Corporation
501 2nd St. Ste. 410 501 2nd St. Ste. 410
San Francisco, California 94107 San Francisco, California 94107
USA USA
Phone: +415 692 0828 Phone: +415 692 0828
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 15 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/