|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 7428
Last modified on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015
 Permanent link to RFC 7428
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 7428
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 7428
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Brandt
Request for Comments: 7428 J. Buron
Category: Standards Track Sigma Designs
ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2015
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks
 Abstract
This document describes the frame format for transmission of IPv6
packets as well as a method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses and
statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on ITU-T G.9959 networks.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7428.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
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.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terms Used .................................................3
1.2. Requirements Language ......................................4
2. G.9959 Parameters to Use for IPv6 Transport .....................5
2.1. Addressing Mode ............................................5
2.2. IPv6 Multicast Support .....................................6
2.3. G.9959 MAC PDU Size and IPv6 MTU ...........................6
2.4. Transmission Status Indications ............................7
2.5. Transmission Security ......................................7
3. 6LoWPAN Adaptation Layer and Frame Format .......................7
3.1. Dispatch Header ............................................8
4. 6LoWPAN Addressing ..............................................9
4.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration of Routable IPv6
Addresses ..................................................9
4.2. IPv6 Link-Local Address ...................................10
4.3. Unicast Address Mapping ...................................10
4.4. On the Use of Neighbor Discovery Technologies .............11
4.4.1. Prefix and CID Management (Route-Over) .............11
4.4.2. Prefix and CID Management (Mesh-Under) .............11
5. Header Compression .............................................12
6. Security Considerations ........................................13
7. Privacy Considerations .........................................14
8. References .....................................................14
8.1. Normative References ......................................14
8.2. Informative References ....................................16
Appendix A. G.9959 6LoWPAN Datagram Example .......................17
Acknowledgements ..................................................21
Authors' Addresses ................................................21
1. Introduction
The ITU-T G.9959 recommendation [G.9959] targets low-power Personal
Area Networks (PANs). This document defines the frame format for
transmission of IPv6 [RFC 2460] packets as well as the formation of
IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured IPv6
addresses on G.9959 networks.
The general approach is to adapt elements of [RFC 4944] to G.9959
networks. G.9959 provides a Segmentation and Reassembly (SAR) layer
for transmission of datagrams larger than the G.9959 Media Access
Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU).
[RFC 6775] updates [RFC 4944] by specifying IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) optimizations for IPv6
Neighbor Discovery (ND) (originally defined by [RFC 4861]). This
document limits the use of [RFC 6775] to prefix and Context ID
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
assignment. An Interface Identifier (IID) may be constructed from a
G.9959 link-layer address, leading to a "link-layer-derived IPv6
address". If using that method, Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is
not needed. Alternatively, IPv6 addresses may be assigned centrally
via DHCP, leading to a "non-link-layer-derived IPv6 address".
Address registration is only needed in certain cases.
In addition to IPv6 application communication, the frame format
defined in this document may be used by IPv6 routing protocols such
as the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)
[RFC 6550] or Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low-Power
and Lossy Networks (P2P-RPL) [RFC 6997] to implement IPv6 routing over
G.9959 networks.
The encapsulation frame defined by this specification may optionally
be transported via mesh routing below the 6LoWPAN layer. Mesh-under
and route-over routing protocol specifications are out of scope for
this document.
1.1. Terms Used
6LoWPAN: IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
ABR: Authoritative 6LoWPAN Border Router (Authoritative 6LBR)
[RFC 6775]
Ack: Acknowledgement
AES: Advanced Encryption Standard
CID: Context Identifier [RFC 6775]
DAD: Duplicate Address Detection [RFC 6775]
DHCPv6: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 [RFC 3315]
EUI-64: Extended Unique Identifier [EUI64]
G.9959: Short range narrow-band digital radiocommunication
transceiver [G.9959]
GHC: Generic Header Compression [RFC 7400]
HomeID: G.9959 Link-Layer Network Identifier
IID: Interface Identifier
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
Link-layer-derived address: IPv6 address constructed on the basis of
link-layer address information
MAC: Media Access Control
Mesh-under: Forwarding via mesh routing below the 6LoWPAN layer
MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit
ND: Neighbor Discovery [RFC 4861] [RFC 6775]
NodeID: G.9959 Link-Layer Node Identifier
Non-link-layer-derived address: IPv6 address assigned by a managed
process, e.g., DHCPv6
P2P-RPL: Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low-Power and
Lossy Networks [RFC 6997]
PAN: Personal Area Network
PDU: Protocol Data Unit
PHY: Physical Layer
RA: Router Advertisement [RFC 4861] [RFC 6775]
Route-over: Forwarding via IP routing above the 6LoWPAN layer
RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks [RFC 6550]
SAR: G.9959 Segmentation and Reassembly
ULA: Unique Local Address [RFC 4193]
1.2. Requirements Language
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].
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
2. G.9959 Parameters to Use for IPv6 Transport
This section outlines properties applying to the PHY and MAC layers
of G.9959 and how to use these for IPv6 transport.
2.1. Addressing Mode
G.9959 defines how a unique 32-bit HomeID network identifier is
assigned by a network controller and how an 8-bit NodeID host
identifier is allocated to each node. NodeIDs are unique within the
network identified by the HomeID. The G.9959 HomeID represents an
IPv6 subnet that is identified by one or more IPv6 prefixes.
An IPv6 host MUST construct its link-local IPv6 address from the
link-layer-derived IID in order to facilitate IP header compression
as described in [RFC 6282].
A node interface MAY support the M flag of the RA message for the
construction of routable IPv6 addresses. A cost-optimized node
implementation may save memory by skipping support for the M flag.
The M flag MUST be interpreted as defined in Figure 1.
+--------+--------+---------------------------------------------+
| M flag | M flag | Required node behavior |
| support| value | |
+--------+--------+---------------------------------------------+
| No |(ignore)| Node MUST use link-layer-derived addressing |
+--------+--------+---------------------------------------------+
| Yes | 0 | Node MUST use link-layer-derived addressing |
| +--------+---------------------------------------------+
| | 1 | Node MUST use DHCPv6-based addressing, and |
| | | node MUST comply fully with [RFC 6775] |
+--------+--------+---------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: RA M Flag Support and Interpretation
A node that uses DHCPv6-based addressing MUST comply fully with the
text of [RFC 6775].
If DHCPv6-based addressing is used, the DHCPv6 client must use a
DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID) of type DUID-UUID, as described in
[RFC 6355]. The Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) used in the
DUID-UUID must be generated as specified in [RFC 4122], Section 4.5,
starting at the third paragraph in that section (the 47-bit random
number-based UUID). The DUID must be stored persistently by the node
as specified in Section 3 of [RFC 6355].
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
A word of caution: since HomeIDs and NodeIDs are handed out by a
network controller function during inclusion, identifier validity and
uniqueness are limited by the lifetime of the network membership.
This can be cut short by a mishap occurring at the network
controller. Having a single point of failure at the network
controller suggests that high-reliability network deployments may
benefit from a redundant network controller function.
This warning applies to link-layer-derived addressing as well as to
non-link-layer-derived addressing deployments.
2.2. IPv6 Multicast Support
[RFC 3819] recommends that IP subnetworks support (subnet-wide)
multicast. G.9959 supports direct-range IPv6 multicast, while
subnet-wide multicast is not supported natively by G.9959. Subnet-
wide multicast may be provided by an IP routing protocol or a mesh
routing protocol operating below the 6LoWPAN layer. Routing protocol
specifications are out of scope for this document.
IPv6 multicast packets MUST be carried via G.9959 broadcast.
As per [G.9959], this is accomplished as follows:
1. The destination HomeID of the G.9959 MAC PDU MUST be the HomeID
of the network.
2. The destination NodeID of the G.9959 MAC PDU MUST be the
broadcast NodeID (0xff).
G.9959 broadcast MAC PDUs are only intercepted by nodes within the
network identified by the HomeID.
2.3. G.9959 MAC PDU Size and IPv6 MTU
IPv6 packets MUST be transmitted using G.9959 transmission profile R3
or higher.
[RFC 2460] specifies that any link that cannot convey a 1280-octet
packet in one piece must provide link-specific fragmentation and
reassembly at a layer below IPv6.
G.9959 provides segmentation and reassembly for payloads up to
1350 octets. IPv6 header compression [RFC 6282] improves the chances
that a short IPv6 packet can fit into a single G.9959 frame.
Therefore, Section 3 of this document specifies that [RFC 6282] MUST
be supported. With the mandatory link-layer security enabled, a
G.9959 R3 MAC PDU may accommodate 6LoWPAN datagrams of up to
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
130 octets without triggering G.9959 segmentation and reassembly.
Longer 6LoWPAN datagrams will lead to the transmission of multiple
G.9959 PDUs.
2.4. Transmission Status Indications
The G.9959 MAC layer provides native acknowledgement and
retransmission of MAC PDUs. The G.9959 SAR layer does the same for
larger datagrams. A mesh routing layer may provide a similar feature
for routed communication. An IPv6 routing stack communicating over
G.9959 may utilize link-layer status indications such as delivery
confirmation and Ack timeout from the MAC layer.
2.5. Transmission Security
Implementations claiming conformance with this document MUST enable
G.9959 shared network key security.
The shared network key is intended to address security requirements
in the home at the normal level of security requirements. For
applications with high or very high requirements for confidentiality
and/or integrity, additional application-layer security measures for
end-to-end authentication and encryption may need to be applied.
(The availability of the network relies on the security properties of
the network key in any case.)
3. 6LoWPAN Adaptation Layer and Frame Format
The 6LoWPAN encapsulation formats defined in this section are carried
as payload in the G.9959 MAC PDU. IPv6 header compression [RFC 6282]
MUST be supported by implementations of this specification. Further,
implementations MAY support Generic Header Compression (GHC)
[RFC 7400]. A node implementing [RFC 7400] MUST probe its peers for
GHC support before applying GHC.
All 6LoWPAN datagrams transported over G.9959 are prefixed by a
6LoWPAN encapsulation header stack. The 6LoWPAN payload follows this
encapsulation header stack. Each header in the header stack contains
a header type followed by zero or more header fields. An IPv6 header
stack may contain, in the following order, addressing, hop-by-hop
options, routing, fragmentation, destination options, and, finally,
payload [RFC 2460]. The 6LoWPAN header format is structured the same
way. Currently, only one payload option is defined for the G.9959
6LoWPAN header format.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
The definition of 6LoWPAN headers consists of the dispatch value, the
definition of the header fields that follow, and their ordering
constraints relative to all other headers. Although the header stack
structure provides a mechanism to address future demands on the
6LoWPAN adaptation layer, it is not intended to provide general-
purpose extensibility.
An example of a complete G.9959 6LoWPAN datagram can be found in
Appendix A.
3.1. Dispatch Header
The Dispatch Header is shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 6LoWPAN CmdCls| Dispatch | Type-specific header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Dispatch Type and Header
6LoWPAN CmdCls: 6LoWPAN Command Class identifier. This field MUST
carry the value 0x4F [G.9959]. The value is assigned by the ITU-T
and specifies that the following bits are a 6LoWPAN encapsulated
datagram. 6LoWPAN protocols MUST ignore the G.9959 frame if the
6LoWPAN Command Class identifier deviates from 0x4F.
Dispatch: Identifies the header type immediately following the
Dispatch Header.
Type-specific header: A header determined by the Dispatch Header.
The dispatch value may be treated as an unstructured namespace. Only
a few symbols are required to represent current 6LoWPAN
functionality. Although some additional savings could be achieved by
encoding additional functionality into the dispatch byte, these
measures would tend to constrain the ability to address future
alternatives.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
+------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Pattern | Header Type | Reference |
+------------+--------------------+-----------+
| 01 1xxxxx | 6LoWPAN_IPHC | [RFC 6282] |
+------------+--------------------+-----------+
Other IANA-assigned 6LoWPAN dispatch values do not
apply to this document.
Figure 3: Dispatch Values
6LoWPAN_IPHC: IPv6 Header Compression. Refer to [RFC 6282].
4. 6LoWPAN Addressing
IPv6 addresses may be autoconfigured from IIDs that may again be
constructed from link-layer address information to save memory in
devices and to facilitate efficient IP header compression as per
[RFC 6282]. Link-layer-derived addresses have a static nature and may
involuntarily expose private usage data on public networks. Refer to
Section 7.
A NodeID is mapped into an IEEE EUI-64 identifier as follows:
IID = 0000:00ff:fe00:YYXX
Figure 4: Constructing a Compressible IID
where XX carries the G.9959 NodeID and YY is a 1-byte value chosen by
the individual node. The default YY value MUST be zero. A node MAY
use values of YY other than zero to form additional IIDs in order to
instantiate multiple IPv6 interfaces. The YY value MUST be ignored
when computing the corresponding NodeID (the XX value) from an IID.
The method of constructing IIDs from the link-layer address obviously
does not support addresses assigned or constructed by other means. A
node MUST NOT compute the NodeID from the IID if the first 6 bytes of
the IID do not comply with the format defined in Figure 4. In that
case, the address resolution mechanisms of [RFC 6775] apply.
4.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration of Routable IPv6 Addresses
The IID defined above MUST be used whether autoconfiguring a ULA IPv6
address [RFC 4193] or a globally routable IPv6 address [RFC 3587] in
G.9959 subnets.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
4.2. IPv6 Link-Local Address
The IPv6 link-local address [RFC 4291] for a G.9959 interface is
formed by appending the IID defined above to the IPv6 link-local
prefix fe80::/64.
The "Universal/Local" (U/L) bit MUST be set to zero in keeping with
the fact that this is not a globally unique value [EUI64].
The resulting link-local address is formed as follows:
10 bits 54 bits 64 bits
+----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
|1111111010| (zeros) | Interface Identifier (IID) |
+----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
Figure 5: IPv6 Link-Local Address
4.3. Unicast Address Mapping
The address resolution procedure for mapping IPv6 unicast addresses
into G.9959 link-layer addresses follows the general description in
Section 7.2 of [RFC 4861]. The Source/Target Link-layer Address
option MUST have the following form when the link layer is G.9959.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x00 | NodeID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Padding |
+- -+
| (All zeros) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: IPv6 Unicast Address Mapping
Option fields:
Type: The value 1 signifies the Source Link-layer address. The
value 2 signifies the Destination Link-layer address.
Length: This is the length of this option (including the Type and
Length fields) in units of 8 octets. The value of this field is
always 1 for G.9959 NodeIDs.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
NodeID: This is the G.9959 NodeID to which the actual interface
currently responds. The link-layer address may change if the
interface joins another network at a later time.
4.4. On the Use of Neighbor Discovery Technologies
[RFC 4861] specifies how IPv6 nodes may resolve link-layer addresses
from IPv6 addresses via the use of link-local IPv6 multicast.
[RFC 6775] is an optimization of [RFC 4861], specifically targeting
6LoWPAN networks. [RFC 6775] defines how a 6LoWPAN node may register
IPv6 addresses with an authoritative border router (ABR). Mesh-under
networks MUST NOT use [RFC 6775] address registration. However,
[RFC 6775] address registration MUST be used if the first 6 bytes of
the IID do not comply with the format defined in Figure 4.
4.4.1. Prefix and CID Management (Route-Over)
In route-over environments, IPv6 hosts MUST use [RFC 6775] address
registration. A node implementation for route-over operation MAY use
[RFC 6775] mechanisms for obtaining IPv6 prefixes and corresponding
header compression context information [RFC 6282]. [RFC 6775] route-
over requirements apply with no modifications.
4.4.2. Prefix and CID Management (Mesh-Under)
An implementation for mesh-under operation MUST use [RFC 6775]
mechanisms for managing IPv6 prefixes and corresponding header
compression context information [RFC 6282]. [RFC 6775] Duplicate
Address Detection (DAD) MUST NOT be used, since the link-layer
inclusion process of G.9959 ensures that a NodeID is unique for a
given HomeID.
With this exception and the specific redefinition of the RA Router
Lifetime value 0xFFFF (refer to Section 4.4.2.3), the text of the
following subsections is in compliance with [RFC 6775].
4.4.2.1. Prefix Assignment Considerations
As stated by [RFC 6775], an ABR is responsible for managing
prefix(es). Global routable prefixes may change over time. It is
RECOMMENDED that a ULA prefix is assigned to the 6LoWPAN subnet to
facilitate stable site-local application associations based on IPv6
addresses. A node MAY support the M flag of the RA message. This
influences the way IPv6 addresses are assigned. Refer to Section 2.1
for details.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
4.4.2.2. Robust and Efficient CID Management
The 6LoWPAN Context Option (6CO) is used according to [RFC 6775] in an
RA to disseminate Context IDs (CIDs) to use for compressing prefixes.
One or more prefixes and corresponding Context IDs MUST be assigned
during initial node inclusion.
When updating context information, a CID may have its lifetime set to
zero to obsolete it. The CID MUST NOT be reused immediately; rather,
the next vacant CID should be assigned. Header compression based on
CIDs MUST NOT be used for RA messages carrying context information.
An expired CID and the associated prefix MUST NOT be reset but rather
must be retained in receive-only mode if there is no other current
need for the CID value. This will allow an ABR to detect if a
sleeping node without a clock uses an expired CID, and in response,
the ABR MUST return an RA with fresh context information to the
originator.
4.4.2.3. Infinite Prefix Lifetime Support for Island-Mode Networks
Nodes MUST renew the prefix and CID according to the lifetime
signaled by the ABR. [RFC 6775] specifies that the maximum value of
the RA Router Lifetime field MAY be up to 0xFFFF. This document
further specifies that the value 0xFFFF MUST be interpreted as
infinite lifetime. This value MUST NOT be used by ABRs. Its use is
only intended for a sleeping network controller -- for instance, a
battery-powered remote control being master for a small island-mode
network of light modules.
5. Header Compression
IPv6 header compression [RFC 6282] MUST be implemented, and GHC
[RFC 7400] compression for higher layers MAY be implemented. This
section will simply identify substitutions that should be made when
interpreting the text of [RFC 6282] and [RFC 7400].
In general, the following substitutions should be made:
o Replace "802.15.4" with "G.9959".
o Replace "802.15.4 short address" with "<Interface><G.9959
NodeID>".
o Replace "802.15.4 PAN ID" with "G.9959 HomeID".
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
When a 16-bit address is called for (i.e., an IEEE 802.15.4 "short
address"), it MUST be formed by prepending an Interface label byte to
the G.9959 NodeID:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface | NodeID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A transmitting node may be sending to an IPv6 destination address
that can be reconstructed from the link-layer destination address.
If the Interface number is zero (the default value), all IPv6 address
bytes may be elided. Likewise, the Interface number of a fully
elided IPv6 address (i.e., SAM/DAM=11) may be reconstructed to the
value zero by a receiving node.
64-bit 802.15.4 address details do not apply.
6. Security Considerations
The method of derivation of Interface Identifiers from 8-bit NodeIDs
preserves uniqueness within the network. However, there is no
protection from duplication through forgery. Neighbor Discovery in
G.9959 links may be susceptible to threats as detailed in [RFC 3756].
G.9959 networks may feature mesh routing. This implies additional
threats due to ad hoc routing as per [KW03]. G.9959 provides
capability for link-layer security. G.9959 nodes MUST use link-layer
security with a shared key. Doing so will alleviate the majority of
threats stated above. A sizable portion of G.9959 devices is
expected to always communicate within their PAN (i.e., within their
subnet, in IPv6 terms). In response to cost and power consumption
considerations, these devices will typically implement the minimum
set of features necessary. Accordingly, security for such devices
may rely on the mechanisms defined at the link layer by G.9959.
G.9959 relies on the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for
authentication and encryption of G.9959 frames and further employs
challenge-response handshaking to prevent replay attacks.
It is also expected that some G.9959 devices (e.g., billing and/or
safety-critical products) will implement coordination or integration
functions. These may communicate regularly with IPv6 peers outside
the subnet. Such IPv6 devices are expected to secure their end-to-
end communications with standard security mechanisms (e.g., IPsec,
Transport Layer Security (TLS), etc.).
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
7. Privacy Considerations
IP addresses may be used to track devices on the Internet; such
devices can in turn be linked to individuals and their activities.
Depending on the application and the actual use pattern, this may be
undesirable. To impede tracking, globally unique and non-changing
characteristics of IP addresses should be avoided, e.g., by
frequently changing the global prefix and avoiding unique link-layer-
derived IIDs in addresses.
Some link layers use a 48-bit or 64-bit link-layer address that
uniquely identifies the node on a global scale, regardless of global
prefix changes. The risk of exposing a G.9959 device from its
link-layer-derived IID is limited because of the short 8-bit
link-layer address.
While intended for central address management, DHCPv6 address
assignment also decouples the IPv6 address from the link-layer
address. Addresses may be made dynamic by the use of a short DHCP
lease period and an assignment policy that makes the DHCP server hand
out a fresh IP address every time. For enhanced privacy, the
DHCP-assigned addresses should be logged only for the duration of the
lease, provided the implementation also allows logging for longer
durations as per the operational policies.
It should be noted that privacy and frequently changing address
assignments come at a cost. Non-link-layer-derived IIDs require the
use of address registration. Further, non-link-layer-derived IIDs
cannot be compressed; this leads to longer datagrams and increased
link-layer segmentation. Finally, frequent prefix changes
necessitate more Context Identifier updates; this not only leads to
increased traffic but also may affect the battery lifetime of
sleeping nodes.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[G.9959] International Telecommunication Union, "Short range
narrow-band digital radiocommunication transceivers - PHY
and MAC layer specifications", ITU-T Recommendation
G.9959, January 2015,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9959>.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
[RFC 2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2460>.
[RFC 4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
July 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4122>.
[RFC 4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4193>.
[RFC 4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4291>.
[RFC 4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4861>.
[RFC 4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4944>.
[RFC 6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6282>.
[RFC 6355] Narten, T. and J. Johnson, "Definition of the UUID-Based
DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID-UUID)", RFC 6355,
August 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6355>.
[RFC 6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
"Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6775>.
[RFC 7400] Bormann, C., "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression for
IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks
(6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, November 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7400>.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
8.2. Informative References
[EUI64] IEEE, "Guidelines for 64-bit Global Identifier
(EUI-64TM)", November 2012, <http://standards.ieee.org/
regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html>.
[KW03] Karlof, C. and D. Wagner, "Secure Routing in Sensor
Networks: Attacks and Countermeasures", Elsevier Ad Hoc
Networks Journal, Special Issue on Sensor Network
Applications and Protocols, vol. 1, issues 2-3,
September 2003.
[RFC 3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3315>.
[RFC 3587] Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global
Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3587>.
[RFC 3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756,
May 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3756>.
[RFC 3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
RFC 3819, July 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3819>.
[RFC 6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., 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, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6550>.
[RFC 6997] Goyal, M., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and J.
Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, August 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6997>.
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
Appendix A. G.9959 6LoWPAN Datagram Example
This example outlines each individual bit of a sample IPv6 UDP packet
arriving to a G.9959 node from a host in the Internet via a PAN
border router.
In the G.9959 PAN, the complete frame has the following fields.
G.9959:
+------+---------+----------+---+-----+----------...
|HomeID|SrcNodeID|FrmControl|Len|SeqNo|DestNodeID|
+------+---------+----------+---+-----+----------+-...
6LoWPAN:
...+--------------+----------------+-----------------------...
|6LoWPAN CmdCls|6LoWPAN_IPHC Hdr|Compressed IPv6 headers|
...-------------+----------------+-----------------------+-...
IPv6, TCP/UDP, App payload:
...+-------------------------+------------+-----------+
|Uncompressed IPv6 headers|TCP/UDP/ICMP|App payload|
...------------------------+------------+-----------+
The frame comes from the source IPv6 address
2001:0db8:ac10:ef01::ff:fe00:1206. The source prefix
2001:0db8:ac10:ef01/64 is identified by the IPHC CID = 3.
The frame is delivered in direct range from the gateway that has
source NodeID = 1. The Interface Identifier (IID) ff:fe00:1206 is
recognized as a link-layer-derived address and is compressed to the
16-bit value 0x1206.
The frame is sent to the destination IPv6 address
2001:0db8:27ef:42ca::ff:fe00:0004. The destination prefix
2001:0db8:27ef:42ca/64 is identified by the IPHC CID = 2.
The IID ff:fe00:0004 is recognized as a link-layer-derived address.
Thanks to the link-layer-derived addressing rules, the sender knows
that this is to be sent to G.9959 NodeID = 4, targeting the IPv6
interface instance number 0 (the default).
To reach the 6LoWPAN stack of the G.9959 node (skipping the G.9959
header fields), the first octet must be the 6LoWPAN Command Class
(0x4F).
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
| 0x4F |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
The Dispatch Header bits '011' advertise a compressed IPv6 header.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
| 0x4F |0 1 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
The following bits encode the first IPv6 header fields:
TF = '11' : Traffic Class and Flow Label are elided
NH = '1' : Next Header is elided
HLIM = '10' : Hop limit is 64
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
| 0x4F |0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
CID = '1' : CI data follows the DAM field
SAC = '1' : Src addr uses stateful, context-based compression
SAM = '10' : Use src CID and 16 bits for link-layer-derived addr
M = '0' : Dest addr is not a multicast addr
DAC = '1' : Dest addr uses stateful, context-based compression
DAM = '11' : Use dest CID and dest NodeID to link-layer-derived addr
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
| 0x4F |0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0|1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 18
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
Address compression context identifiers:
SCI = 0x3
DCI = 0x2
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
| 0x3 | 0x2 |
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
IPv6 header fields:
(skipping "version" field)
(skipping "Traffic Class")
(skipping "flow label")
(skipping "payload length")
IPv6 header address fields:
SrcIP = 0x1206 : Use SCI and 16 least significant bits of
link-layer-derived address
(skipping DestIP ) - completely reconstructed from dest NodeID
and DCI
2 3 4
4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
| 0x3 | 0x2 | 0x12 | 0x06 |
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
Next Header encoding for the UDP header:
Dispatch = '11110': Next Header dispatch code for UDP header
C = '0' : 16-bit checksum carried inline
P = '00' : Both src port and dest port are carried in-line
4 5
8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
|1 1 1 1 0|0|0 0|
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 19
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
UDP header fields:
src port = 0x1234
dest port = 0x5678
5 6 7 8
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 2 3 4 5 6 7
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
| 0x12 | 0x34 | 0x56 | 0x78 |
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-..
(skipping "length")
checksum = .... (actual checksum value depends on
the actual UDP payload)
1
8 9 0
8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
| (UDP checksum) |
...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
Add your own UDP payload here...
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 20
RFC 7428 IPv6 over G.9959 February 2015
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the authors of RFC 4944 and RFC 6282, and members of the
IETF 6LoWPAN working group; this document borrows extensively from
their work. Thanks to Erez Ben-Tovim, Erik Nordmark, Kerry Lynn,
Michael Richardson, and Tommas Jess Christensen for useful comments.
Thanks to Carsten Bormann for extensive feedback that improved this
document significantly. Thanks to Brian Haberman for pointing out
unclear details.
Authors' Addresses
Anders Brandt
Sigma Designs
Emdrupvej 26A, 1.
Copenhagen O 2100
Denmark
EMail: anders_brandt@sigmadesigns.com
Jakob Buron
Sigma Designs
Emdrupvej 26A, 1.
Copenhagen O 2100
Denmark
EMail: jakob_buron@sigmadesigns.com
Brandt & Buron Standards Track PAGE 21
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 42657 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
