<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.0.20 -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>

<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-02" category="std" updates="4944">

<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no"?>
<?rfc authorship="yes"?>
<?rfc tocappendix="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="no"?>

  <front>
    <title>A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN</title>

    <author initials="P." surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert" role="editor">
      <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Village d'Entreprises Green Side</street> <street>400, Avenue de Roumanille</street> <street>Batiment T3</street>
          <city>Biot - Sophia Antipolis</city>
          <code>06410</code>
          <country>FRANCE</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+33 4 97 23 26 34</phone>
        <email>pthubert@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="C." surname="Bormann" fullname="Carsten Bormann">
      <organization abbrev="Uni Bremen TZI">Universitaet Bremen TZI</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Postfach 330440</street>
          <city>Bremen</city>
          <code>D-28359</code>
          <country>Germany</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+49-421-218-63921</phone>
        <email>cabo@tzi.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="L." surname="Toutain" fullname="Laurent Toutain">
      <organization abbrev="IMT-TELECOM Bretagne">Institut MINES TELECOM; TELECOM Bretagne</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2 rue de la Chataigneraie</street> <street>CS 17607</street>
          <city>Cesson-Sevigne Cedex</city>
          <code>35576</code>
          <country>France</country>
        </postal>
        <email>Laurent.Toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="R." surname="Cragie" fullname="Robert Cragie">
      <organization abbrev="AMR">ARM Ltd.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>110 Fulbourn Road</street>
          <city>Cambridge</city>
          <code>CB1 9NJ</code>
          <country>UK</country>
        </postal>
        <email>robert.cragie@gridmerge.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2015" month="January" day="19"/>

    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>6lo</workgroup>
    

    <abstract>


<t>This specification provides a new 6LoWPAN dispatch type for use in
Route-over and mixed Mesh-under and Route-over topologies, that reuses the
encoding of the mesh type defined in RFC 4944 for pure Mesh-under topologies.
This specification also defines
a method to compress RPL Option (RFC6553) information and Routing Header
type 3 (RFC6554), an efficient IP-in-IP technique and opens the way for
further routing techniques.
This extends 6LoWPAN Transmission of IPv6 Packets (RFC4944), and is applicable
to new link-layer types where 6LoWPAN is being defined.</t>



    </abstract>


  </front>

  <middle>


<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">

<t>The design of Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) is generally
focused on saving
energy, which is the most constrained resource of all. The other
constraints, such as the memory capacity and the duty cycling of the LLN
devices, derive from that primary concern. Energy is often available
from primary batteries that are expected to last for years, or is scavenged from the
environment in very limited quantities. Any protocol that is intended for
use in LLNs must be designed with the primary concern of saving energy as
a strict requirement.</t>

<t>Controlling the amount of data transmission is one possible venue to save
energy. In a number of LLN standards, the frame size is limited to much
smaller values than the IPv6 maximum transmission unit (MTU) of 1280 bytes.
In particular, an LLN that relies on the classical Physical Layer (PHY)
of IEEE 802.14.5 <xref target="IEEE802154"/> is limited to 127 bytes
per frame. The need to compress IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.14.5 led to
the <xref target="RFC6282">6LoWPAN Header Compression</xref> work (6LoWPAN-HC).</t>

<t>Innovative Route-over techniques have been and are still being developed for
routing inside a LLN. In a general fashion, such techniques require additional
information in the packet to provide loop prevention and to indicate
information such as flow identification,
source routing information, etc.</t>

<t>For reasons such as security and the capability to send ICMP errors back to the
source, an original packet must not be tampered with, and any information that
must be inserted in or removed from an IPv6 packet must be placed in an extra
IP-in-IP encapsulation.
This is the case when the additional routing information is inserted by a router
on the path of a packet, for instance a mesh root, as opposed to the source node.
This is also the case when some routing information must be removed from a
packet that will flow outside the LLN.</t>

<t>As an example, the <xref target="RFC6550">Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks</xref>
(RPL) is designed to optimize the routing operations in constrained LLNs.
As part of this optimization, RPL requires the addition of RPL Packet Information
(RPI) in every packet, as defined in Section 11.2 of <xref target="RFC6550"/>.</t>

<t>The <xref target="RFC6553">RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams</xref>
specification indicates how the RPI can be placed in a RPL Option for use in an
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header.  This representation demands a total of 8 bytes when in most
cases the actual RPI payload requires only 19 bits. Since the Hop-by-Hop header must
not flow outside of the RPL domain, it must be removed from packets that leave
the domain, and be inserted in packets entering the domain. In both cases, this
operation implies an IP-in-IP encapsulation.</t>

<figure title="IP-in-IP Encapsulation within the LLN" anchor="encaps"><artwork><![CDATA[
           ------+---------                            ^
                 |          Internet                   |
                 |                                     | Native IPv6
              +-----+                                  |
              |     | Border Router (RPL Root)    ^    |    ^
              |     |                             |    |    |
              +-----+                             |    |    | IPv6 in
                 |                                |    |    | IPv6
           o    o   o    o                        |    |    | + RPI
       o o   o  o   o  o  o o   o                 |    |    |  or RH3
      o  o o  o o    o   o   o  o  o              |    |    |
      o   o    o  o     o  o    o  o  o           |    |    |
     o  o   o  o   o         o   o o              v    v    v
     o          o             o     o
                       LLN
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Additionally, in the case of the Non-Storing Mode of Operation (MOP),
RPL requires a Routing Header type 3 (RH3) as defined in the <xref target="RFC6554">IPv6 Routing
Header for Source Routes with RPL</xref> specification, for all packets that
are routed down a RPL graph.
With Non-Storing RPL, even if the source is a node in the same LLN, the packet must first
reach up the graph to the root so that the root can insert the RH3 to go down
the graph. In any fashion, whether the packet was originated in a node
in the LLN or outside the LLN, and regardless of whether the packet stays within
the LLN or not, as long as the source of the packet is not the root itself,
the source-routing operation also implies an IP-in-IP encapsulation at the root
to insert the RH3.</t>

<t><xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture">6TiSCH</xref> specifies the
operation of IPv6 over the <xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch">TimeSlotted Channel Hopping</xref>
(TSCH) mode of
operation of IEEE 802.14.5. The architecture requires the use of both RPL and
the 6lo adaptation layer framework (<xref target="RFC4944"/>, <xref target="RFC6282"/>)
over IEEE 802.14.5. Because it inherits the constraints on the frame size
from the MAC layer, 6TiSCH cannot afford to spend 8 bytes per packet
on the RPI.
Hence the requirement for a 6LoWPAN header compression of the RPI.</t>

<t>The type of information that needs to be present in a packet inside the LLN but
not outside of the LLN varies with the routing operation,
but there is overall a need for an extensible compression technique that would
simplify the IP-in-IP encapsulation, when needed, and optimally compress
existing routing artifacts found in LLNs.</t>

<t>This specification extends 6LoWPAN <xref target="RFC4944"/> and in particular
reuses the Mesh Header formats that are defined for the Mesh-under use cases so
as to carry routing information for Route-over use cases.
The specification includes the formats necessary for RPL and is extensible for
additional formats.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="terminology" title="Terminology">

<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>

<t>The Terminology used in this document is consistent with and
incorporates that described in `Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks’ <xref target="RFC7102"/> and <xref target="RFC6550"/>.</t>

<t>The terms Route-over and Mesh-under are defined in <xref target="RFC6775"/>.</t>

<t>Other terms in use in LLNs are found in <xref target="RFC7228"/>.</t>

<t>The term “byte” is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for
“octet”.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="updating-rfc-4944" title="Updating RFC 4944">

<t>Section 5.1 of the <xref target="RFC4944">IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4</xref> specification defines
various Dispatch Types and Headers, and in particular a
Mesh Header that corresponds to a pattern 10xxxxxx and effectively consumes
one third of the whole 6LoWPAN dispatch space for Mesh-under specific
applications.</t>

<t>This specification reuses the Dispatch space for Route-over and mixed
operations. This means that a device that use the Mesh Header as specified
in <xref target="RFC4944"/> should not be placed in a same network as a
device which operates per this update. This is generally not a problem since
a network is classically either Mesh-under OR Route-over.</t>

<t>A new implementation of Mesh-under MAY support both types of encoding,
and if so, it SHOULD provide a management toggle to enable either mode
and it SHOULD use this specification as the default mode.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="rhf" title="General Format">

<t>The 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH) reuses the bit patterns that are defined in
<xref target="RFC4944"/> 
for the Mesh Header, specifically the Dispatch Value Bit Pattern of 10xxxxxx.<vspace />
It may contain source routing information such as a compressed form of RH3, 
or other sorts of routing information such as the RPL RPI, source and/or 
destination address, and is extensible for future uses,
with the given example of BIER bitmap encoding in <xref target="BIER-6LoRH-encoding"/>.</t>

<t>There are two forms for 6LoRH:
&gt; Elective (6LoRHE)
&gt; Critical (6LoRHC)</t>

<section anchor="LoRHE" title="Elective Format">

<t>The 6LoRHE uses the Dispatch Value Bit Pattern of 101xxxxx.<vspace />
A 6LoRHE may be ignored and skipped in parsing.<vspace />
If it is ignored, the 6LoRHE is forwarded with no change inside the LLN.</t>

<figure title="Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header" anchor="rtghe"><artwork><![CDATA[
    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       ...        -+
   |1|0|1| Length  |      Type     |                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       ...        -+
                                    <--    Length    -->
]]></artwork></figure>

<t><list style="hanging">
  <t hangText='Length:'><vspace blankLines='0'/>
  Length of the 6LoRHE expressed in bytes, excluding the first 2 bytes. 
This is done to enable a node to skip a 6LoRH that it does not support and/or 
cannot parse, for instance if the Type is not known.</t>
  <t hangText='Type: '><vspace blankLines='0'/>
  Type of the 6LoRHE </t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="critical-format-lorhc" title="Critical Format {LoRHC}">

<t>The 6LoRHC uses the Dispatch Value Bit Pattern of 100xxxxx.<vspace />
A node which does not support the 6LoRHC Type MUST silently discard the packet 
(note that there is no provision for the exchange of error messages; 
such a situation should be avoided by judicious use of administrative control 
and/or capability indications).</t>

<figure title="Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header" anchor="rtghc"><artwork><![CDATA[
  0                   1
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-              ...               -+
 |1|0|0|   TSE   |      Type     |                                  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-              ...               -+
                                    <-- Length implied by Type/TSE -->
]]></artwork></figure>

<t><list style="hanging">
  <t hangText='TSE:'><vspace blankLines='0'/>
  Type Specific Extension.  The meaning depends on the Type, which must be known in all of the nodes.  The interpretation of the TSE depends on the Type field that follows. For instance, it may be used to transport control bits, the number of elements in an array, or the length of the remainder of the 6LoRHC expressed in a unit other than bytes.</t>
  <t hangText='Type: '><vspace blankLines='0'/>
  Type of the 6LoRHC </t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="placement_6LoRHC" title="Placement of 6LoRH">

<t>One or more 6LoRHs MAY be placed in a 6LoWPAN packet and MUST always be placed 
before the LOWPAN_IPHC <xref target="RFC6282"></xref>.  A 6LoRH MAY be used in conjunction with a 
Fragmentation Type and Header <xref target="RFC4944"></xref> in three ways:
&gt; Before the Fragmentation Type and Header
&gt; Before and after the Fragmentation Type and Header
&gt; After the Fragmentation Type and Header</t>

<t>Headers are processed in order so if a 6LoRH is processed that is sufficient to 
route a packet, then there is no need for the intermediate node to process the 
packet further.</t>

<section anchor="LoRHCbefore" title="6LoRH before Fragmentation Type and Header">

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
     | 6LoRH | Frag1 | IPHC | Payload Frag1 |
     | 6LoRH | FragN | Payload Frag2 |
     | 6LoRH | FragN | Payload Frag3 |...
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>If a 6LoRH is placed before a Fragmentation Type and Header, the fragments 
can be routed individually.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="LoRHCafter" title="6LoRH after Fragmentation Type and Header">

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
     | Frag1 | 6LoRH | IPHC | Payload Frag1 |
     | FragN | Payload Frag2 |
     | FragN | Payload Frag3 |...
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>If a 6LoRH is placed after a Fragmentation Type and Header, the fragments 
cannot be individually routed and the whole IPv6 packet needs to be reassembled
at every LLN hop.</t>

</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="RH3-6LoRH-encoding" title="The Routing Header type 3 (RH3) 6LoRH">

<t>The Routing Header type 3 (RH3) 6LoRH (RH3-6LoRH)
is a Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header that
provides a compressed form for the RH3, as defined
in <xref target="RFC6554"/> for use by RPL routers. Routers that need to
forward a packet with a RH3-6LoRH are expected to be RPL routers and expected
to support this specification. If a non-RPL router receives a packet with
a RPI-6LoRH, this means that there was a routing error and the packet should be
dropped so the Type cannot be ignored.</t>

<figure title="The RH3-6LoRH" anchor="RH3LoRH"><artwork><![CDATA[
    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-    -+-    -+ ... +-    -+
   |1|0|0|  Size   |6LoRH Type 0..4| Hop1 | Hop2 |     | HopN |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-    -+-    -+ ... +-    -+

         Size indicates the number of compressed addresses
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The values for the RH3-6LoRH Type are an enumeration, 0 to 4.
The form of compression is indicated by the Type as follows:</t>

<figure title="The RH3-6LoRH Types" anchor="RH3LoRHtype"><artwork><![CDATA[
  +-----------+-----------+
  |   Type    | Size Unit |
  +-----------+-----------+
  |    0      |      1    |
  |    1      |      2    |
  |    2      |      4    |
  |    3      |      8    |
  |    4      |     16    |
  +-----------+-----------+
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>In the case of a RH3-6LoRH, the TSE field is used as a Size, which
encodes the number of hops minus 1; so a Size of 0 means one hop,
and the maximum that can be encoded is 32 hops.  (If more than 32 hops
need to be expressed, a sequence of RH3-6LoRH can be employed.)</t>

<t>The next Hop is indicated in the first entry of the first RH3-6LoRH.
Upon reception, the entry is checked whether it refers to the
processing router itself. If it so, the entry
is removed from the RH3-6LoRH and the Size is decremented. If the Size
is now zero, the whole RH3-6LoRH is removed. If there is no more RH3-6LoRH,
the processing node is the last router on the way, which may or may not
be collocated with the final destination.</t>

<t>The last hop in the last RH3-6LoRH is the last router prior to the destination 
in the LLN. So even when there is a RH3-6LoRH in the frame, the address of 
the final destination is in the LoWPAN_IPHC <xref target="RFC6282"/>.</t>

<t>If some bits of the first address in the RH3-6LoRH can be derived from the 
final destination is in the LoWPAN_IPHC, then that address may be compressed, 
otherwise is is expressed in full. Next addresses only need to express the delta
from the previous address.</t>

<t>All addresses in a RH3-6LoRH are compressed in a same fashion, down to the
same number of bytes per address. In order to get different forms
of compression, multiple consecutive RH3-6LoRH must be used.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="rpl6LoRHenc" title="The RPL Packet Information 6LoRH">

<t><xref target="RFC6550"/>, Section 11.2, specifies the RPL Packet Information (RPI) as
a set of fields that are to be added to the IP packets for the purpose
of Instance Identification, as well as Loop Avoidance and Detection.</t>

<t>In particular, the SenderRank, which is the scalar
metric computed by an specialized Objective Function such as <xref target="RFC6552"/>,
indicates the Rank of the sender and is modified at each hop.
The SenderRank allows to validate that the packet progresses
in the expected direction, either upwards or downwards, along the DODAG.</t>

<t>RPL defines the <xref target="RFC6553">RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams</xref>
to transport the RPI, which is carried in an
<xref target="RFC2460">IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header</xref>,
typically consuming eight bytes per packet.</t>

<t>With <xref target="RFC6553"/>, the RPL option is encoded as six Octets;
it must be placed in a Hop-by-Hop header that consumes two additional
octets for a total of eight. In order to limit its range to the inside the
RPL domain, the Hop-by-Hop header must be added to (or removed from) packets
that cross the border of the RPL domain.</t>

<t>The 8-bytes overhead is detrimental to the LLN operation, in particular
with regards to bandwidth and battery constraints. These bytes may cause
a containing frame to grow above maximum frame size, leading to
Layer 2 or 6LoWPAN <xref target="RFC4944"/> fragmentation,
which in turn cause even more energy spending and issues discussed in the
<xref target="I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments">LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery</xref>.</t>

<t>An additional overhead comes from the need, in certain cases,
to add an IP-in-IP encapsulation to carry the Hop-by-Hop header.
This is needed when the router that inserts the Hop-by-Hop header is not the
source of the packet, so that an error can be returned to the router. This
is also the case when a packet originated by a RPL node must be stripped from
the Hop-by-Hop header to be routed outside the RPL domain.</t>

<t>This specification defines an IPinIP-6LoRH in <xref target="IPinIPencoding"/> for that
purpose, but it must be noted that stripping a 6LoRH does not require a
manipulation of the packet in the LOWPAN_IPHC, and thus,
if the source address in the LOWPAN_IPHC is the node that inserted the
IPinIP-6LoRH then this alone does not mandate an IPinIP-6LoRH.</t>

<t>As a result, a RPL packet may bear only a RPI-6LoRH and no IPinIP-6LoRH.
In that case, the source and destination of the packet are located in the
LOWPAN_IPHC.</t>

<t>As with <xref target="RFC6553"/>, the fields in the RPI include an ‘O’, an ‘R’, and
an ‘F’ bit, an 8-bit RPLInstanceID (with some internal structure), and
a 16-bit SenderRank.</t>

<t>The remainder of this section defines the RPI-6LoRH, 
a Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header that is designed to transport the RPI
in 6LoWPAN LLNs.</t>

<section anchor="ints6LoRH" title="Compressing the RPLInstanceID">

<t>RPL Instances are discussed in <xref target="RFC6550"/>, Section 5.
A number of simple use cases will not require more than one instance, and in
such a case, the instance is expected to be the global Instance 0.
A global RPLInstanceID is encoded in a RPLInstanceID field as follows:</t>

<figure title="RPLInstanceID Field Format for Global Instances" anchor="rplgid"><artwork><![CDATA[
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|     ID      |  Global RPLInstanceID in 0..127
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>For the particular case of the global Instance 0, the
RPLInstanceID field is all zeros.
This specification allows to elide a RPLInstanceID field that is all
zeros, and defines a I flag that, when set, signals that the field is elided.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="rank6LoRH" title="Compressing the SenderRank">

<t>The SenderRank is the result of the DAGRank operation on the rank of the
sender; here the DAGRank operation is defined in <xref target="RFC6550"/>, Section 3.5.1, as:</t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>DAGRank(rank) = floor(rank/MinHopRankIncrease)</t>
</list></t>

<t>If MinHopRankIncrease is set to a multiple of 256,
the least significant 8 bits of the SenderRank will be all zeroes; by
eliding those, the SenderRank can be compressed into a single byte.
This idea is used in <xref target="RFC6550"/> by defining
DEFAULT_MIN_HOP_RANK_INCREASE as 256 and in <xref target="RFC6552"/> that defaults
MinHopRankIncrease to DEFAULT_MIN_HOP_RANK_INCREASE.</t>

<t>This specification allows to encode the SenderRank as either one or
two bytes, and defines a K flag that, when set, signals that a
single byte is used.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="rpi-6LoRH-encoding" title="The Overall RPI-6LoRH encoding">

<t>The RPI-6LoRH provides a compressed form for the RPL RPI. Routers that need to
forward a packet with a RPI-6LoRH are expected to be RPL routers and expected
to support this specification. If a non-RPL router receives a packet with
a RPI-6LoRH, this means that there was a routing error and the packet should be
dropped so the Type cannot be ignored.</t>

<t>Since the I flag is not set, the TSE field does not need to be a
length expressed in bytes. The field is fully reused for control bits
so as to encode the O, R and F flags from the RPI, and the I and K flags
that indicate the compression that is taking place.</t>

<t>The Type for the RPI-6LoRH is 5.</t>

<t>The RPI-6LoRH is immediately followed by the RPLInstanceID field, unless that
field is fully elided, and then the SenderRank, which is either compressed
into one byte or fully in-lined as the whole 2 bytes. The I and K flags
in the RPI-6LoRH indicate whether the RPLInstanceID is elided and/or the
SenderRank is compressed and depending on these bits, the Length of the
RPI-6LoRH may vary as described hereafter.</t>

<figure title="The Generic RPI-6LoRH Format" anchor="rpl6LoRH"><artwork><![CDATA[
    0                   1                   2
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ...  -+-+-+
   |1|0|0|O|R|F|I|K| 6LoRH Type=5  |   Compressed fields  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ...  -+-+-+

]]></artwork></figure>

<t><list style="hanging" hangIndent="6">
  <t hangText='O, R, and F bits:'><vspace blankLines='0'/>
  The O, R, and F bits as defined in <xref target="RFC6550"/>, Section 11.2.</t>
  <t hangText='I bit:'><vspace blankLines='0'/>
  If it is set, the Instance ID is elided and the
RPLInstanceID is the Global RPLInstanceID 0.  If it is not set,
the octet immediately following the type field contains the
RPLInstanceID as specified in <xref target="RFC6550"></xref> section 5.1.</t>
  <t hangText='K bit:'><vspace blankLines='0'/>
  If it is set, the SenderRank is be compressed into one
octet, and the lowest significant octet is elided.  If it is
not set, the SenderRank, is fully inlined as 2 octets.</t>
</list></t>

<t>In <xref target="rpl6LoRH1"/>, the RPLInstanceID is the Global RPLInstanceID 0,
and the MinHopRankIncrease is a multiple of 256 so the least significant
byte is all zeros and can be elided:</t>

<figure title="The most compressed RPI-6LoRH" anchor="rpl6LoRH1"><artwork><![CDATA[
    0                   1                   2
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|0|0|O|R|F|1|1| 6LoRH Type=5  | SenderRank    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             I=1, K=1
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>In <xref target="rpl6LoRH2"/>, the RPLInstanceID is the Global RPLInstanceID 0, but
both bytes of the SenderRank are significant so it can not be compressed:</t>

<figure title="Eliding the RPLInstanceID" anchor="rpl6LoRH2"><artwork><![CDATA[
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|0|0|O|R|F|1|0| 6LoRH Type=5  |        SenderRank             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             I=1, K=0
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>In <xref target="rpl6LoRH4"/>, the RPLInstanceID is not the Global RPLInstanceID
0, and the MinHopRankIncrease is a multiple of 256:</t>

<figure title="Compressing SenderRank" anchor="rpl6LoRH4"><artwork><![CDATA[
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|0|0|O|R|F|0|1| 6LoRH Type=5  | RPLInstanceID |  SenderRank   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             I=0, K=1
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>In <xref target="rpl6LoRH3"/>, the RPLInstanceID is not the Global RPLInstanceID
0, and both bytes of the SenderRank are significant:</t>

<figure title="Least compressed form of RPI-6LoRH" anchor="rpl6LoRH3"><artwork><![CDATA[
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|0|0|O|R|F|0|0| 6LoRH Type=5  | RPLInstanceID |    Sender-...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ...-Rank      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             I=0, K=0
]]></artwork></figure>

<t>A typical packet in RPL non-storing mode going down the RPL graph requires
an IPinIP encapsulating the RH3, whereas the RPI is usually omitted, unless
it is important to indicate the RPLInstanceID. To match this structure, an
optimized IPinIP 6LoRH is defined in <xref target="IPinIPencoding"/>.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="IPinIPencoding" title="The IP-in-IP 6LoRH">

<t>The IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IPinIP-6LoRH) is an Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header that
provides a compressed form for the encapsulating
IPv6 Header in the case of an IP-in-IP encapsulation.</t>

<t>An IPinIP encapsulation is used to insert a field such as a Routing Header or
an RPI at a router that is not the source of the packet. In order to send an
error back regarding the inserted field, the address of the router that performs
the insertion must be provided.</t>

<t>The encapsulation can also enable a router down the path
removing a field such as the RPI, but this can be done in the compressed form
by removing the RPI-6LoRH, so an IPinIP-6LoRH encapsulation is not required for
that sole purpose.</t>

<t>This field is not critical for routing so the Type can be ignored, and the
TSE field contains the Length in bytes.</t>

<figure title="The IPinIP-6LoRH" anchor="IPinIPLoRH"><artwork><![CDATA[
  0                   1                   2
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       ...      -+
 |1|0|1| Length  | 6LoRH Type 6  |  Hop Limit    | Encaps. Address  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       ...      -+

]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The Length of an IPinIP-6LoRH is expressed in bytes and MUST be at least 1,
to indicate a Hop Limit (HL), that is decremented at each hop. When the HL
reaches 0, the packet is dropped per <xref target="RFC2460"/></t>

<t>If the Length of an IPinIP-6LoRH is exactly 1, then the Encapsulator Address
is elided, which means that the Encapsulator is a well-known router, for
instance the root in a RPL graph.</t>

<t>If the Length of an IPinIP-6LoRH is strictly more than 1, then an Encapsulator
Address is placed in a compressed form after the Hop Limit field.
The value of the Length indicates which compression is performed on the
Encapsulator Address. For instance, a Size of 3 indicates that the Encapsulator
Address is compressed to 2 bytes.</t>

<t>When it cannot be elided, the destination IP address of the IP-in-IP 
header is transported in a RH3-6LoRH as the first address of the list.</t>

<t>With RPL, the destination address in the IP-in-IP header is implicitly the
root in the RPL graph for packets going upwards, and the destination address
in the IPHC for packets going downwards. If the implicit value is correct,
the destination IP address of the IP-in-IP encapsulation can be elided. </t>

<t>If the final destination of the packet is a leaf that does not support 
this specification, then the chain of 6LoRH must be stripped by the RPL/6LR router
to which the leaf is attached. In that example, the destination IP address of the
IP-in-IP header cannot be elided.</t>

<t>In the special case where the 6LoRH is used to route 6LoWPAN fragments, 
the destination address is not accessible in the IPHC on all fragments and can be
elided only for the first fragment and for packets going upwards.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="MH-6LoRH-encoding" title="The Mesh Header 6LoRH">

<t>The Mesh Header 6LoRH (MH-6LoRH) 
is an Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header that
provides an alternate form for the Mesh
Addressing Type and Header defined in <xref target="RFC4944"/> with the same semantics.</t>

<t>The MH-6LoRH is introduced as replacement for use in potentially
mixed Route_Over and Mesh-under environments. LLN nodes that need to
forward a packet with a MH-6LoRH are expected to support this specification.
If a router that supports only Route-over receives a packet with a MH-6LoRH, 
this means that there was a routing error and the packet should be dropped,
so the Type cannot be ignored.</t>

<t>The HopsLft field defined in <xref target="RFC4944"/> is encoded in the TSE, so this 
specification doubles the potential number of hops vs. <xref target="RFC4944"/>. </t>

<t>The HopsLft value of 0x1F is reserved and signifies an 8-bit 
Deep Hops Left field immediately following the Type, 
and allows a source node to specify a hop limit greater than 30 hops.</t>

<figure title="The MH-6LoRH" anchor="MHLoRH"><artwork><![CDATA[
 0                   1
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-              ...                -+
|1|0|0| HopsLft |6LoRHType 8..11| originator address, final address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-              ...                -+

]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The V and F flags defined in <xref target="RFC4944"/> are encoded in the
MH-6LoRH Type as follows:</t>

<figure title="The MH-6LoRH Types" anchor="MHLoRHtype"><artwork><![CDATA[
  +-----------+-------+-------+
  |   Type    |   V   |   F   |
  +-----------+-------+-------+
  |     8     |   0   |   0   |
  |     9     |   0   |   1   |
  |    10     |   1   |   0   |
  |    11     |   1   |   1   |
  +-----------+-------+-------+

]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="BIER-6LoRH-encoding" title="The BIER 6LoRH">

<t>(Note that the current contents of this section is a proof of concept
only; the details for this encoding need to be developed in parallel
with defining the semantics of a constrained version of BIER.)</t>

<t>The Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) 6LoRH (BIER-6LoRH)
is an Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header that provides
a variable-size container for a BIER Bitmap.
BIER can be used to route downwards a RPL graph towards
one or more LLN node, as discussed in the
<xref target="I-D.wijnands-bier-architecture">BIER Architecture</xref> specification. 
The
capability to parse the BIER Bitmap is necessary to forward the packet
so the Type cannot be ignored.</t>

<figure title="The BIER-6LoRH" anchor="BIERLoRH"><artwork><![CDATA[
    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-    ...      -+
   |1|0|0|  Size   |6LoRHType12..19| Control Fields |    bitmap     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-    ...      -+

]]></artwork></figure>

<t>The Type for a BIER-6LoRH indicates the size of words used to build the bitmap
and whether the bitmap is operated as an uncompressed bit-by-bit mapping,
or as a Bloom filter.</t>

<t>In the bit-by-bit case, each bit is mapped in an unequivocal fashion with a
single addressable resource in the network. This may rapidly lead to large
bitmaps, and BIER allows to divide a network into groups that partition the
network so that a given bitmap is locally significant to one group only.
This specification allows to encode a 1-byte Group ID in the BIER-6LoRH
Control Fields.</t>

<t>A Bloom Filter can be seen as a compression technique for the bitmap.
A Bloom Filter may generate false positives, which, in the case of BIER, result
in undue forwarding of a packet down a path where no listener exists.</t>

<t>As an example, the <xref target="I-D.bergmann-bier-ccast">Constrained-Cast</xref> specification
employs Bloom Filters as a compact representation of a match or non-match for
elements in a large set.</t>

<t>In the case of a Bloom Filter, a number of Hash functions must be run to obtain
a multi-bit signature of an encoded element. This specification allows to signal
an Identifier of the Hash functions being used to generate a certain bitmap, so
as to enable a migration scenario where Hash functions are renewed. A Hash ID is
signaled as a 1-byte value, and, depending on the Type, there may be up to 2 or
up to 8 Hash IDs passed  in the BIER-6LoRH Control Fields associated with a
Bloom Filter bitmap, as follows:</t>

<figure title="The BIER-6LoRH Types" anchor="BIERLoRHtype"><artwork><![CDATA[
  +-----------+--------------+------------------+-----------+
  |   Type    |   encoding   |  Control Fields  | Word Size |
  +-----------+--------------+------------------+-----------+
  |    12     | bit-by-bit   |      none        |  32 bits  |
  |    13     | Bloom filter | 2* 1-byte HashID |  32 bits  |
  |    14     | bit-by-bit   |      none        |  128 bits |
  |    15     | Bloom filter | 8* 1-byte HashID |  128 bits |
  |    16     | bit-by-bit   |  1-byte GroupID  |  128 bits |
  +-----------+--------------+------------------+-----------+

]]></artwork></figure>

<t>In order to address a potentially large number of devices, the bitmap may
grow very large. Yet, the maximum frame size for a given MAC layer may limit
the number of bits that can be dedicated to routing. The Size indicates the
number of words in the bitmap minus one, so a size of 0 means one word,
a Size of 1 means 64 2 words, up to a size of 31 which means 32 words.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations" title="Security Considerations">

<t>The security considerations of <xref target="RFC4944"/>, <xref target="RFC6282"/>, and <xref target="RFC6553"/> apply.</t>

<t>Using a compressed format as opposed to the full inline RPL option is
logically equivalent and does not create an opening for a new threat when
compared to <xref target="RFC6553"/>.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="iana-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">

<t>This document creates a IANA registry for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type,
and assigns the following values:</t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>0..4   : RH3-6LoRH                         [RFCthis]</t>
</list></t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>5      : RPI-6LoRH                         [RFCthis]</t>
</list></t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>6      : IPinIP-6LoRH                      [RFCthis]</t>
</list></t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>8..11  : MH-6LoRH                          [RFCthis]</t>
</list></t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>12..16 : BIER-6LoRH                        [RFCthis]</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">

<t>The author wishes to thank Martin Turon and Robert Cragie for constructive
contributions. The discussion in the 6man and roll working groups also was
helpful.</t>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title='Normative References'>





<reference anchor='RFC2119'>

<front>
<title abbrev='RFC Key Words'>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Bradner' fullname='Scott Bradner'>
<organization>Harvard University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1350 Mass. Ave.</street>
<street>Cambridge</street>
<street>MA 02138</street></postal>
<phone>- +1 617 495 3864</phone>
<email>sob@harvard.edu</email></address></author>
<date year='1997' month='March' />
<area>General</area>
<keyword>keyword</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
   In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
   the requirements in the specification.  These words are often
   capitalized.  This document defines these words as they should be
   interpreted in IETF documents.  Authors who follow these guidelines
   should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

<list>
<t>
      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.
</t></list></t>
<t>
   Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
   level of the document in which they are used.
</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119' />
<format type='TXT' octets='4723' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt' />
<format type='HTML' octets='17970' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html' />
<format type='XML' octets='5777' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2119.xml' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC2460'>

<front>
<title abbrev='IPv6 Specification'>Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification</title>
<author initials='S.E.' surname='Deering' fullname='Stephen E. Deering'>
<organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>170 West Tasman Drive</street>
<street>San Jose</street>
<region>CA</region>
<code>95134-1706</code>
<country>USA</country></postal>
<phone>+1 408 527 8213</phone>
<facsimile>+1 408 527 8254</facsimile>
<email>deering@cisco.com</email></address></author>
<author initials='R.M.' surname='Hinden' fullname='Robert M. Hinden'>
<organization>Nokia</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>232 Java Drive</street>
<street>Sunnyvale</street>
<region>CA</region>
<code>94089</code>
<country>USA</country></postal>
<phone>+1 408 990 2004</phone>
<facsimile>+1 408 743 5677</facsimile>
<email>hinden@iprg.nokia.com</email></address></author>
<date year='1998' month='December' />
<area>Internet</area>
<keyword>internet protocol version 6</keyword>
<keyword>IPv6</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
   This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6),
   also sometimes referred to as IP Next Generation or IPng.
</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2460' />
<format type='TXT' octets='85490' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt' />
<format type='HTML' octets='107357' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2460.html' />
<format type='XML' octets='94163' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2460.xml' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC6282'>

<front>
<title>Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks</title>
<author initials='J.' surname='Hui' fullname='J. Hui'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='P.' surname='Thubert' fullname='P. Thubert'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2011' month='September' />
<abstract>
<t>This document updates RFC 4944, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks".  This document specifies an IPv6 header compression format for IPv6 packet delivery in Low Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs).  The compression format relies on shared context to allow compression of arbitrary prefixes.  How the information is maintained in that shared context is out of scope.  This document specifies compression of multicast addresses and a framework for compressing next headers.  UDP header compression is specified within this framework. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6282' />
<format type='TXT' octets='52588' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6282.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC6550'>

<front>
<title>RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks</title>
<author initials='T.' surname='Winter' fullname='T. Winter'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='P.' surname='Thubert' fullname='P. Thubert'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='A.' surname='Brandt' fullname='A. Brandt'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='J.' surname='Hui' fullname='J. Hui'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='R.' surname='Kelsey' fullname='R. Kelsey'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='P.' surname='Levis' fullname='P. Levis'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='K.' surname='Pister' fullname='K. Pister'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='R.' surname='Struik' fullname='R. Struik'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='JP.' surname='Vasseur' fullname='JP. Vasseur'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='R.' surname='Alexander' fullname='R. Alexander'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='March' />
<abstract>
<t>Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are a class of network in which both the routers and their interconnect are constrained.  LLN routers typically operate with constraints on processing power, memory, and energy (battery power).  Their interconnects are characterized by high loss rates, low data rates, and instability.  LLNs are comprised of anything from a few dozen to thousands of routers.  Supported traffic flows include point-to-point (between devices inside the LLN), point-to-multipoint (from a central control point to a subset of devices inside the LLN), and multipoint-to-point (from devices inside the LLN towards a central control point).  This document specifies the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL), which provides a mechanism whereby multipoint-to-point traffic from devices inside the LLN towards a central control point as well as point-to-multipoint traffic from the central control point to the devices inside the LLN are supported.  Support for point-to-point traffic is also available. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6550' />
<format type='TXT' octets='360651' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6550.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC6552'>

<front>
<title>Objective Function Zero for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)</title>
<author initials='P.' surname='Thubert' fullname='P. Thubert'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='March' />
<abstract>
<t>The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) specification defines a generic Distance Vector protocol that is adapted to a variety of network types by the application of specific Objective Functions (OFs). An OF states the outcome of the process used by a RPL node to select and optimize routes within a RPL Instance based on the Information Objects available; an OF is not an algorithm.&lt;/t>&lt;t> This document specifies a basic Objective Function that relies only on the objects that are defined in the RPL and does not use any protocol extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6552' />
<format type='TXT' octets='30419' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6552.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC6553'>

<front>
<title>The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams</title>
<author initials='J.' surname='Hui' fullname='J. Hui'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='JP.' surname='Vasseur' fullname='JP. Vasseur'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='March' />
<abstract>
<t>The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) includes routing information in data-plane datagrams to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing topology.  This document describes the RPL Option for use among RPL routers to include such routing information. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6553' />
<format type='TXT' octets='19093' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6553.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC6554'>

<front>
<title>An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)</title>
<author initials='J.' surname='Hui' fullname='J. Hui'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='JP.' surname='Vasseur' fullname='JP. Vasseur'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='D.' surname='Culler' fullname='D. Culler'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='V.' surname='Manral' fullname='V. Manral'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='March' />
<abstract>
<t>In Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs), memory constraints on routers may limit them to maintaining, at most, a few routes.  In some configurations, it is necessary to use these memory-constrained routers to deliver datagrams to nodes within the LLN.  The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) can be used in some deployments to store most, if not all, routes on one (e.g., the Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) root) or a few routers and forward the IPv6 datagram using a source routing technique to avoid large routing tables on memory-constrained routers.  This document specifies a new IPv6 Routing header type for delivering datagrams within a RPL routing domain. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6554' />
<format type='TXT' octets='30270' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6554.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC6775'>

<front>
<title>Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)</title>
<author initials='Z.' surname='Shelby' fullname='Z. Shelby'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='S.' surname='Chakrabarti' fullname='S. Chakrabarti'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='E.' surname='Nordmark' fullname='E. Nordmark'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='C.' surname='Bormann' fullname='C. Bormann'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='November' />
<abstract>
<t>The IETF work in IPv6 over Low-power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) defines 6LoWPANs such as IEEE 802.15.4.  This and other similar link technologies have limited or no usage of multicast signaling due to energy conservation.  In addition, the wireless network may not strictly follow the traditional concept of IP subnets and IP links.  IPv6 Neighbor Discovery was not designed for non- transitive wireless links, as its reliance on the traditional IPv6 link concept and its heavy use of multicast make it inefficient and sometimes impractical in a low-power and lossy network.  This document describes simple optimizations to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, its addressing mechanisms, and duplicate address detection for Low- power Wireless Personal Area Networks and similar networks.  The document thus updates RFC 4944 to specify the use of the optimizations defined here. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6775' />
<format type='TXT' octets='130616' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6775.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC7102'>

<front>
<title>Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks</title>
<author initials='JP.' surname='Vasseur' fullname='JP. Vasseur'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2014' month='January' />
<abstract>
<t>This document provides a glossary of terminology used in routing requirements and solutions for networks referred to as Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs).  An LLN is typically composed of many embedded devices with limited power, memory, and processing resources interconnected by a variety of links.  There is a wide scope of application areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building automation (e.g., heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, access control, fire), connected home, health care, environmental monitoring, urban sensor networks, energy management, assets tracking, and refrigeration.</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7102' />
<format type='TXT' octets='16444' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7102.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC7228'>

<front>
<title>Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks</title>
<author initials='C.' surname='Bormann' fullname='C. Bormann'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='M.' surname='Ersue' fullname='M. Ersue'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='A.' surname='Keranen' fullname='A. Keranen'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2014' month='May' />
<abstract>
<t>The Internet Protocol Suite is increasingly used on small devices with severe constraints on power, memory, and processing resources, creating constrained-node networks.  This document provides a number of basic terms that have been useful in the standardization work for constrained-node networks.</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7228' />
<format type='TXT' octets='37635' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7228.txt' />
</reference>


<reference anchor="IEEE802154" >
  <front>
    <title>IEEE std. 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks</title>
    <author >
      <organization>IEEE standard for Information Technology</organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2015"/>
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ISA100.11a" target="http://www.isa.org/Community/SP100WirelessSystemsforAutomation">
  <front>
    <title>Wireless Systems for Industrial Automation: Process Control and Related Applications - ISA100.11a-2011 - IEC 62734</title>
    <author >
      <organization>ISA/ANSI</organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2011"/>
  </front>
</reference>


    </references>

    <references title='Informative References'>





<reference anchor='RFC4944'>

<front>
<title>Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks</title>
<author initials='G.' surname='Montenegro' fullname='G. Montenegro'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='N.' surname='Kushalnagar' fullname='N. Kushalnagar'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='J.' surname='Hui' fullname='J. Hui'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='D.' surname='Culler' fullname='D. Culler'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2007' month='September' />
<abstract>
<t>This document describes the frame format for transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured addresses on IEEE 802.15.4 networks.  Additional specifications include a simple header compression scheme using shared context and provisions for packet delivery in IEEE 802.15.4 meshes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4944' />
<format type='TXT' octets='67232' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch'>
<front>
<title>Using IEEE802.15.4e TSCH in an IoT context: Overview, Problem Statement and Goals</title>

<author initials='T' surname='Watteyne' fullname='Thomas Watteyne'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='M' surname='Palattella' fullname='Maria Palattella'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='L' surname='Grieco' fullname='Luigi Grieco'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='January' day='8' year='2015' />

<abstract><t>This document describes the environment, problem statement, and goals for using the IEEE802.15.4e TSCH MAC protocol in the context of LLNs. The set of goals enumerated in this document form an initial set only.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-05' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-05.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments'>
<front>
<title>LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery</title>

<author initials='P' surname='Thubert' fullname='Pascal Thubert'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='J' surname='Hui' fullname='Jonathan Hui'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='November' day='25' year='2014' />

<abstract><t>In order to be routed, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation occurs. Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an an 802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the worst case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragments at the 6LoWPAN shim layer.  If a single one of those fragments is lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initial packet loss.  This draft introduces a simple protocol to forward and recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple hops between 6LoWPAN endpoints.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-02' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-02.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture'>
<front>
<title>An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e</title>

<author initials='P' surname='Thubert' fullname='Pascal Thubert'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='T' surname='Watteyne' fullname='Thomas Watteyne'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='R' surname='Assimiti' fullname='Robert Assimiti'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='October' day='27' year='2014' />

<abstract><t>This document presents an architecture for an IPv6 Multi-Link subnet that is composed of a high speed powered backbone and a number of IEEE802.15.4e TSCH wireless networks attached and synchronized by Backbone Routers.  The TSCH schedule can be static or dynamic. 6TiSCH defines mechanisms to establish and maintain the routing and scheduling operations in a centralized, distributed, or mixed fashion.  Backbone Routers perform proxy Neighbor Discovery operations over the backbone on behalf of the wireless devices, so they can share a same subnet and appear to be connected to the same backbone as classical devices</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-04' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-04.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.wijnands-bier-architecture'>
<front>
<title>Multicast using Bit Index Explicit Replication</title>

<author initials='I' surname='Wijnands' fullname='IJsbrand Wijnands'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='E' surname='Rosen' fullname='Eric Rosen'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='A' surname='Dolganow' fullname='Andrew Dolganow'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='T' surname='Przygienda' fullname='Tony Przygienda'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='S' surname='Aldrin' fullname='Sam Aldrin'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='December' day='4' year='2014' />

<abstract><t>This document specifies a new architecture for the forwarding of multicast data packets.  It provides optimal forwarding of multicast packets through a "multicast domain".  However, it does not require any explicit tree-building protocol, nor does it require intermediate nodes to maintain any per-flow state.  This architecture is known as "Bit Index Explicit Replication" (BIER).  When a multicast data packet enters the domain, the ingress router determines the set of egress routers to which the packet needs to be sent.  The ingress router then encapsulates the packet in a BIER header.  The BIER header contains a bitstring in which each bit represents exactly one egress router in the domain; to forward the packet to a given set of egress routers, the bits corresponding to those routers are set in the BIER header.  Elimination of the per-flow state and the explicit tree-building protocols results in a considerable simplification.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-wijnands-bier-architecture-02' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wijnands-bier-architecture-02.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.bergmann-bier-ccast'>
<front>
<title>Constrained-Cast: Source-Routed Multicast for RPL</title>

<author initials='O' surname='Bergmann' fullname='Olaf Bergmann'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='C' surname='Bormann' fullname='Carsten Bormann'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='S' surname='Gerdes' fullname='Stefanie Gerdes'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='November' day='10' year='2014' />

<abstract><t>This specification defines a protocol for forwarding multicast traffic in a constrained node network employing the RPL routing protocol in non-storing mode.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-bergmann-bier-ccast-00' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bergmann-bier-ccast-00.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc'>
<front>
<title>A compression mechanism for the RPL option</title>

<author initials='P' surname='Thubert' fullname='Pascal Thubert'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='C' surname='Bormann' fullname='Carsten Bormann'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='October' day='25' year='2014' />

<abstract><t>This specification defines the RPL Packet Information (RPI) NHC compression, a method to compress RPL Option (RFC6553) information within 6LoWPAN-style ("6lo") adaptation layers.  This extends 6LoWPAN Header Compression (RFC6282), saving up to 48 bits in each frame compared to the uncompressed form in RFC 6553.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.bormann-6lo-rpl-mesh'>
<front>
<title>NHC compression for RPL Packet Information</title>

<author initials='C' surname='Bormann' fullname='Carsten Bormann'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='October' day='12' year='2014' />

<abstract><t>This short draft provides a straw man for the RPL Packet Information (RPI) NHC compression, a method to compress RPL Option [RFC6553] information within 6lowpan-style ("6lo") adaptation layers.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-bormann-6lo-rpl-mesh-02' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bormann-6lo-rpl-mesh-02.txt' />
</reference>




    </references>


<!--  LocalWords:  LoWPAN topologies RPL IP IPv Lossy LLNs LLN MTU
 -->
<!--  LocalWords:  PHY IEEE ICMP RPI Datagrams TiSCH TSCH TLV DODAG
 -->
<!--  LocalWords:  SenderRank RPLInstanceID DAGRank inlined LoRH IPHC
 -->
<!--  LocalWords:  MinHopRankIncrease IPinIP Encapsulator IANA
 -->
<!--  LocalWords:  RFCthis acknowledgements
 -->



  </back>
</rfc>

