[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

ROLL                                                      R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  R. Sahoo
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Y. Wu
Expires: October 24, 2018                                         Huawei
                                                          April 22, 2018


                            RPL Observations
                  draft-rahul-roll-rpl-observations-01

Abstract

   This document describes RPL protocol design issues, various
   observations and possible consequences of the design and
   implementation choices.

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 October 24, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  DTSN increment in storing MOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  DAO retransmission and use of DAO-ACK in storing MOP  . . . .   5
     3.1.  Significance of bidirectional Path establishment
           indication and relevance of DAO-ACK . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Problems with hop-by-hop DAO-ACK  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Problems with end-to-end DAO-ACK  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.5.  Implementation Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Handling resource unavailability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Handling aggregated targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  RPL Transit Information in DAO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Managing persistent variables across node reboots . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Persistent storage and RPL state information  . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  Lollipop Counters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.3.  RPL State variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.3.1.  DODAG Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       7.3.2.  DTSN field in DIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.3.3.  PathSequence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.4.  State variables update frequency  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.5.  Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.6.  Implementation Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  RPL under-specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector routing scheme
   designed for LLNs (Low Power and Lossy Networks).  RPL enables the
   network to be formed as a DODAG and supports storing mode and non-
   storing mode of operations.  Non-storing mode allows reduced memory
   resource usage on the nodes by allowing non-BR nodes to operate
   without managing a routing table and involves use of source routing




Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   by the 6LBR to direct the traffic along a specific path.  In storing
   mode of operation intermediate routers maintain routing tables.

   This work aims to highlight various issues with RPL which makes it
   difficult to handle certain scenarios.  This work will highlight such
   issues in context to RPL's mode of operations (storing versus non-
   storing).  There are cases where RPL does not provide clear rules and
   implementations have to make their choices hindering interoperability
   and performance.

   [I-D.clausen-lln-rpl-experiences] provides some interesting points.
   Some sections in this draft may overlap with some observations in
   [clausen], but this is been done to further extend some scenarios or
   observations.  It is highly encouraged that readers should also visit
   [I-D.clausen-lln-rpl-experiences] for other insights.  Regardless,
   this draft is self-sufficient in a way that it does not expect to
   have read [clausen-draft].

1.1.  Requirements Language and 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].

   NS-MOP = RPL Non-storing Mode of Operation

   S-MOP = RPL Storing Mode of Operation

   This document uses terminology described in [RFC6550] and [RFC6775].

2.  DTSN increment in storing MOP

   DTSN increment has major impact on the overall RPL control traffic
   and on the efficiency of downstream route update.  DTSN is sent as
   part of DIO message and signals the downstream nodes to trigger the
   target advertisement.  The 6LR needs to decide when to update the
   DTSN and usually it should do it in a conservative way.  The DTSN
   update mechanism determines how soon the downward routes are
   established along the new path.  RPL specifications does not provide
   any clear mechanism on how the DTSN update should happen in case of
   storing mode.










Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


                                   (6LBR)
                                      |
                                      |
                                      |
                                     (A)
                                     / \
                                    /   \
                                   /     \
                                 (B)    -(C)
                                  |    /  |
                                  |   /   |
                                  |  /    |
                                 (D)-    (E)
                                   \      ;
                                    \    ;
                                     \  ;
                                      (F)
                                      / \
                                     /   \
                                    /     \
                                  (G)     (H)

                         Figure 1: Sample topology

   Consider example topology shown in Figure 1, assume that node D
   switches the parent from node B to C.  Ideally the downstream nodes D
   and its sub-childs should send their target advertisement to the new
   path via node C.  To achieve this result in a efficient way is a
   challenge.  Incrementing DTSN is the only way to trigger the DAO on
   downstream nodes.  But this trigger should be sent not only on the
   first hop but to all the grand-child nodes.  Thus DTSN has to be
   incremented in the complete sub-DODAG rooted at node D thus resulting
   in DIO/DAO storm along the sub-DODAG.  This is specifically a big
   issue in high density networks where the metric deteoration might
   happen transiently even though the signal strength is good.

   The primary implementation issue is whether a child node increment
   its own DTSN when it receives DTSN update from its parent node?  This
   would result in DAO-updates in the sub-DODAG, thus the cost could be
   very high.  If not incremented it may result in serious loss of
   connectivity for nodes in the sub-DODAG.

2.1.  Deliberations

   (1)  In S-MOP, should the child nodes increment its DIO on seeing
        that its preferred parent has updated its DTSN?





Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   (2)  What are rules for DTSN increment for storing MOP, which
        multiple implementations can follow thus allowing consistent
        performance across different implementations?

3.  DAO retransmission and use of DAO-ACK in storing MOP

   [RFC6550] has an optional DAO-ACK mechanism using which an upstream
   parent confirms the reception of a DAO from the downstream child.  In
   case of storing mode, the DAO is addressed to the immediate hop
   upstream parent resulting in DAO-ACK from the parent.  There are two
   implementations possible:

   (1)  Hop-by-hop ACK: A parent responds with a DAO-ACK immedetialy
        after receiving the DAO.

   (2)  End-to-End ACK: A node waits for the upstream parent to send
        DAO-ACK to respond with a DAO-ACK downstream.  The upstream
        parent may do as many attempts to successfully send this DAO
        upstream.  In other words, the parent node accepts the
        responsibilty of sending the DAO upstream till the point it is
        ACKed the moment it responds back with its own ACK to the child.

                               1->          3->
                               DAO          DAO
                    (TgtNode)--------(6LR)-------(root)
                               ACK          ACK
                               <-2          <-4

                       Figure 2: Hop-by-hop DAO-ACK

                               1->          2->
                               DAO          DAO
                    (TgtNode)--------(6LR)-------(root)
                               ACK          ACK
                               <-4          <-3

                       Figure 3: End-to-End DAO-ACK

3.1.  Significance of bidirectional Path establishment indication and
      relevance of DAO-ACK

   Lot of application traffic patterns requires that the bidirectional
   path be established between the target node and the root.  A typical
   example is that COAP request with ACK bit set would require an
   acknowledgement from the end receiver and thus warrants bidirectional
   path establishment.  It is imperative that the target node first
   ascertains whether such a bidirectional path is established before
   initiating such application traffic.  In case of non-storing MOP, the



Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   DAO-ACK works perfectly fine to ascertain such bidirectional
   connectivity since it is an indication that the root which usually is
   the direct destination of the DAO has received the DAO.  But in case
   of storing MOP, things are more complicated since DAO is sent hop-by-
   hop and the DAO-ACK semantics are not clear enough as per the current
   specification.  As mentioned in above section, an implementation can
   choose to implement hop-by-hop ACK or end-to-end ACK.

3.2.  Problems with hop-by-hop DAO-ACK

   The primary issue with this mode is that target node cannot ascertain
   bidirection path connectivity on the reception of the DAO-ACK.

3.3.  Problems with end-to-end DAO-ACK

   In this case, it is possible for the target node to ascertain if the
   DAO has indeed reached the root since the reception of DAO-ACK on
   target node confirms this.  However there is extra state information
   that needs to be maintained on the 6LRs on behalf of all the child
   nodes.  Also it is very difficult for the target node to ascertain a
   timer value to decide whether the DAO transmission has failed to
   reach the root.

3.4.  Deliberations

   (1)  How should an implementation interpret the DAO-ACK semantics?

   (2)  What is the best way for the target node to know that the end to
        end bidirectional path is successfully installed or updated?  In
        NS-MOP, the DAO-ACK provides a clear way to do this.  Can the
        same be achieved for storing-MOP?

   (3)  What happens if the DAO-ACK with Status!=0 is responded by
        ancestor node?

   (4)  How to selectively NACK subset of targets in case target
        containers are aggregated?

3.5.  Implementation Notes

   Current RPL open source implementations have both types of DAO-ACK
   implementations.  For e.g.  RIOT supports hop-by-hop DAO-ACK.
   Contiki older versions supported hop-by-hop ACK but the recent
   version have changed to end-to-end ACK implementation.

   The sequence of sending no-path DAO and DAO matters when updating the
   routing adjacencies on a parent switch.  If an implementation chooses
   to send no-path DAO before DAO then it results in significantly more



Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   overhead for route invalidation.  This is because no-path DAO would
   traverse all the way up to the BR clearing the routes on the way.  In
   case there is a common ancestor post which the old and new path
   remains same then it is better to send regular DAO first thus
   limiting the propagation of subsequent no-path DAO till this common
   ancestor.

4.  Handling resource unavailability

   The nodes in the constrained networks have to maintain various
   records such as neighbor cache entries and routing entries on behalf
   of other targets to facilitate packet forwarding.  Because of the
   constrained nature of the devices the memory available may be very
   limited and thus the path selection algorithm may have to take into
   consideration such resource constraints as well.

   RPL currently does not have any mechanism to advertise such resource
   indicator metrics.  The primary tables associated with RPL are
   routing table and the neighbor cache.  Even though neighbor cache is
   not directly linked with RPL protocol, the maintenance of routing
   adjacencies results in updates to neigbor cache.

4.1.  Deliberations

      Is it possible to know that an upstream parent/ancestor cannot
      hold enough routing entries and thus this path should not be used?

      Is it possible to know that an upstream parent cannot hold any
      more neighbor cache entry and thus this upstream parent should not
      be used?

5.  Handling aggregated targets

   RPL allows and defines specific procedures so as to aid target
   aggregation in DAO.  Having said that, the specification does not
   mandate use of aggregated targets nor does it make any comment on
   whether a receiving node needs to handle it.  Target aggregation is
   an useful tool and especially helps with link layer technologies that
   does not suffer from low MTUs such as PLC.  Even if the
   implementation does not support aggregating targets, it should
   atleast mandate reception of aggregated targets in DAO.

   RPL has a mechanism currently to ACK the DAO but it does not have a
   mechanism to ACK the target container.  Thus in case of aggregated
   targets in the DAO, if the subset of the targets fail then it is
   impossible for the DAO-ACK to signal this to the DAO sender.





Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


5.1.  Deliberations

      Even if the implementation does not support aggregating targets,
      should it atleast mandate reception and handling of aggregated
      targets in DAO?

      There is a good scope for compressing aggregated targets which can
      significantly reduce the RPL control overhead.

      How to selectively NACK subset of targets in case target
      containers are aggregated?

      The DEFAULT_DAO_DELAY of 1sec does not help much with aggregation.
      The upstream parent nodes should wait for more time then the child
      nodes so as to effectively aggregate.  Can we have
      DEFAULT_DAO_DELAY a function of the level/rank the node is at?

6.  RPL Transit Information in DAO

   RPL allows associating a target or set of targets with a Transit
   information container which contains attributes for a path to one or
   more destinations identified by the set of targets.  In case of NS-
   MOP, the transit Information will contain the all critical Parent
   Address which allows the common ancestor usually the root to identify
   the source route header for the target node.  The Transit Information
   also contains other information such as Path Sequence and Path
   Lifetime which are critical for maintaining route adjacencies.

   RPL however does not mandate the use of Transit Information container
   for targets.

6.1.  Deliberations

      Is it ok to let implementations decide on the inclusion of Transit
      Information container?

      Is it possible to achieve interop without mandating use of Transit
      Information Container?

      If the Transit Information container is sent, should the handling
      of PathSequence be mandated?

      The DEFAULT_DAO_DELAY of 1sec does not help much with aggregation.
      The upstream parent nodes should wait for more time then the child
      nodes so as to effectively aggregate.  Can we have
      DEFAULT_DAO_DELAY a function of the level/rank the node is at?





Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


7.  Managing persistent variables across node reboots

7.1.  Persistent storage and RPL state information

   Devices are required to be functional for several years without
   manual maintanence.  Usually battery power consumption is considered
   key for operating the devices for several (tens of) years.  But apart
   from battery, flash memory endurance may prove to be a lifetime
   bottleneck in constrained networks.  Endurance is defined as maximum
   number of erase-write cycles that a NAND/NOR cell can undergo before
   losing its 'gauranteed' write operation.  In some cases (cheaper
   NAND-MLC/TLC), the endurance can be as less as 2K cycles.  Thus for
   e.g.  if a given cell is written 5 times a day, that NAND-flash cell
   assuming an endurance of 10K cycles may last for less than 6 years.

   Wear leveling is a popular technique used in flash memory to minimize
   the impact of limited cell endurance.  Wear leveling works by
   arranging data so that erasures and re-writes are distributed evenly
   across the medium.  The memory sectors are over-provisioned so that
   the writes are distributed across multiple sectors.  Many IoT
   platforms do not necessarily consider this over-provisioning and
   usually provision the memory only to what is required.  Some
   scenarios such as street-lighting may not require the application
   layer to write any information to the persistent storage and thus the
   over-provisioning is often ignored.  In such cases if the network
   stack ends up using persistent storage for maintaining its state
   information then it becomes counter-productive.

   In a star topology, the amount of persistent data write done by
   network protocols is very limited.  But ad-hoc networks employing
   routing protocols such as RPL assume certain state information to be
   retained across node reboots.  In case of IoT devices this storage is
   mostly floating gate based NAND/NOR based flash memory.  The impact
   of loss of this state information differs depending upon the type
   (6LN/6LR/6LBR) of the node.

7.2.  Lollipop Counters

   [RFC6550] Section 7.2. explains sequence counter operation defining
   lollipop [Perlman83] style counters.  Lollipop counters specify
   mechanism in which even if the counter value wraps, the algorithm
   would be able to tell whether the received value is the latest or
   not.  This mechanism also helps in "some cases" to recover from node
   reboot, but is not foolproof.

   Consider an e.g. where Node A boots up and initialises the seqcnt to
   240 as recommended in [RFC6550].  Node A communicates to Node B using
   this seqcnt and node B uses this seqcnt to determine whether the



Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   information node A sent in the packet is latest.  Now lets assume,
   the counter value reaches 250 after some operations on Node A, and
   node B keeps receiving updated seqcnt from node A.  Now consider that
   node A reboots, and since it reinitializes the seqcnt value to 240
   and sends the information to node B (who has seqcnt of 250 stored on
   behalf of node A).  As per section 7.2. of [RFC6550], when node B
   receives this packet it will consider the information to be old
   (since 240 < 250).

                         +-----+-----+----------+
                         |  A  |  B  |  Output  |
                         +-----+-----+----------+
                         | 240 | 240 | A<B, old |
                         | 240 | 241 | A<B, old |
                         | 240 |  :: | A<B, old |
                         | 240 | 256 | A<B, old |
                         | 240 |  0  | A<B, new |
                         | 240 |  1  | A>B, new |
                         | 240 |  :: | A>B, new |
                         | 240 | 127 | A>B, new |
                         +-----+-----+----------+

      Default values for lollipop counters considered from [RFC6550]
                               Section 7.2.

                Table 1: Example lollipop counter operation

   Based on this figure, there is dead zone (240 to 0) in which if A
   operates after reboot then the seqcnt will always be considered
   smaller.  Thus node A needs to maintain the seqcnt in persistent
   storage and reuse this on reboot.

7.3.  RPL State variables

   The impact of loss of RPL state information differs depending upon
   the node type (6LN/6LR/6LBR).  Following sections explain different
   state variables and the impact in case this information is lost on
   reboot.

7.3.1.  DODAG Version

   The tuple (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID, DODAGVersionNumber) uniquely
   identifies a DODAG Version.  DODAGVersionNumber is incremented
   everytime a global repair is initiated for the instance (global or
   local).  A node receiving an older DODAGVersionNumber will ignore the
   DIO message assuming it to be from old DODAG version.  Thus a 6LBR
   node (and 6LR node in case of local DODAG) needs to maintain the
   DODAGVersionNumber in the persistent storage, so as to be available



Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   on reboot.  In case the 6LBR could not use the latest
   DODAGVersionNumber the implication are that it won't be able to
   recover/re-establish the routing table.

7.3.2.  DTSN field in DIO

   DTSN (Destination advertisement Trigger Sequence Number) is a DIO
   message field used as part of procedure to maintain Downward routes.
   A 6LBR/6LR node may increment a DTSN in case it requires the
   downstream nodes to send DAO and thus update downward routes on the
   6LBR/6LR node.  In case of RPL NS-MOP, only the 6LBR maintains the
   downward routes and thus controls this field update.  In case of
   S-MOP, 6LRs additionally keep downward routes and thus control this
   field update.

   In S-MOP, when a 6LR node switches parent it may have to issue a DIO
   with incremented DTSN to trigger downstream child nodes to send DAO
   so that the downward routes are established in all parent/ancestor
   set.  Thus in S-MOP, the frequency of DTSN update might be relatively
   high (given the node density and hysteresis set by objective function
   to switch parent).

7.3.3.  PathSequence

   PathSequence is part of RPL Transit Option, and associated with RPL
   Target option.  A node whichs owns a target address can associate a
   PathSequence in the DAO message to denote freshness of the target
   information.  This is especially useful when a node uses multiple
   paths or multiple parents to advertise its reachability.

   Loss of PathSequence information maintained on the target node can
   result in routing adjacencies been lost on 6LRs/6LBR/6BBR.

7.4.  State variables update frequency

    +--------------------+-------------------+------------------------+
    |   State variable   |  Update frequency |   Impacts node type    |
    +--------------------+-------------------+------------------------+
    | DODAGVersionNumber |        Low        | 6LBR, 6LR(local DODAG) |
    |        DTSN        | High(SM),Low(NSM) |       6LBR, 6LR        |
    |    PathSequence    | High(SM),Low(NSM) |        6LR, 6LN        |
    +--------------------+-------------------+------------------------+

   Low=<5 per day, High=>5 per day; SM=Storing MOP, NSM=Non-Storing MOP

                       Table 2: RPL State variables





Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


7.5.  Deliberations

   (1)  Is it possible that RPL reduces the use of persistent storage
        for maintaining state information?

   (2)  In most cases, the node reboots will happen very rarely.  Thus
        doing a persistent storage book-keeping for handling node reboot
        might not make sense.  Is it possible to consider signaling
        (especially after the node reboots) so as to avoid maintaining
        this persistent state?  Is it possible to use one-time on-reboot
        signalling to recover some state information?

   (3)  It is necessary that RPL avoids using persistent storage as far
        as possible.  Ideally, extensions to RPL should consider this as
        a design requirement especially for 6LR and 6LN nodes.  DTSN and
        PathSequence are the primary state variables which have major
        impact.

7.6.  Implementation Notes

   An implementation should use a random DAOSequence number on reboot so
   as to avoid a risk of reusing the same DAOSequence on reboot.
   Regardless the sequence counter size of 8bits does not provide much
   gurantees towards choosing a good random number.  A parent node will
   not respond with a DAO-ACK in case it sees a DAO with the same
   previous DAOSequence.

   Write-Before-Use: The state information should be written to the
   flash before using it in the messaging.  If it is done the other way,
   then the chances are that the node power downs before writing to the
   persistent storage.

8.  RPL under-specification

   (a)  PathSequence: Is it mandatory to use PathSequence in DAO Transit
        container?  RPL mentions that a 6LR/6LBR hosting the routing
        entry on behalf of target node should refresh the lifetime on
        reception of a new Path Sequence.  But RPL does not necessarily
        mandate use of Path Sequence.  Most of the open source
        implementation [RIOT] [CONTIKI] currently do not issue Path
        Sequence in the DAO message.

   (b)  Target Container aggregation in DAO: RPL allows multiple targets
        to be aggregated in a single DAO message and has introduced a
        notion of DelayDAO using which a 6LR node could delay its DAO to
        enable such aggregation.  But RPL does not have clear text on
        handling of aggregated DAOs and thus it hinders
        interoperability.



Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   (c)  DTSN Update: RPL does not clearly define in which cases DTSN
        should be updated in case of storing mode of operation.  More
        details for this are presented in Section 2.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Pascal Thubert for hallway chats and for helping
   understand the existing design rationales.  Thanks to Michael
   Richardson for Unstrung RPL implementation rationale.  Thanks to ML
   discussions, in particular (https://www.ietf.org/mail-
   archive/web/roll/current/msg09443.html).

10.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

11.  Security Considerations

   This is an information draft and does add any changes to the existing
   specifications.

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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6552]  Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing
              Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)",
              RFC 6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC6552, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6552>.




Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
              Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
              Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
              RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.

   [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>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.clausen-lln-rpl-experiences]
              Clausen, T., Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Herberg, U., and Y.
              Igarashi, "Observations on RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low power and Lossy Networks", draft-clausen-lln-rpl-
              experiences-11 (work in progress), March 2018.

   [Perlman83]
              Perlman, R., "Fault-Tolerant Broadcast of Routing
              Information", North-Holland Computer Networks, Vol.7,
              December 1983.

Appendix A.  Additional Stuff

Authors' Addresses

   Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor)
   Huawei
   Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   Phone: +91-080-49160700
   Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com


   Rabi Narayan Sahoo
   Huawei
   Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   Phone: +91-080-49160700
   Email: rabinarayans@huawei.com




Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              RPL Observations                  April 2018


   Yuefeng Wu
   Huawei
   No.101, Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District,
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Phone: +86-15251896569
   Email: wuyuefeng@huawei.com











































Jadhav, et al.          Expires October 24, 2018               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/