<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">


<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc authorship="yes"?>
<?rfc tocappendix="yes"?>
<rfc  xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" ipr="trust200902"
tocInclude="true" indexInclude="true" obsoletes=""  consensus="true"
submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" version="3"  updates="4861, 6550, 6553, 8505, 9010"
docName="draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-16" >

<front>

   <title abbrev="Multicast and Anycast Subscription">IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Multicast and Anycast Address Listener Subscription</title>
   
   <author initials='P' surname='Thubert' fullname='Pascal Thubert' role='editor'>
      <!-- <organization abbrev='Cisco Systems'>Cisco Systems, Inc</organization> -->
      <address>
         <postal>
            <city>Roquefort-les-Pins</city>
            <code>06330</code>
          <country>France</country>
         </postal>
         <email>pascal.thubert@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
   </author>
   <area>Internet</area>

   <workgroup>6lo</workgroup>

   <abstract>
   <t>
    This document updates the 6LoWPAN extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
    (RFC 4861, RFC 8505) to enable a listener to subscribe to an IPv6 anycast or
    multicast address;  the document updates RPL (RFC 6550, RFC 6553) to add a
    new Non-Storing Multicast Mode and a new support for anycast addresses in
    Storing and Non-Storing Modes.
    This document extends RFC 9010 to enable the 6LR to inject the anycast and
    multicast addresses in RPL.
   </t>
   </abstract>
</front>

<middle>

<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<section anchor="introduction"> <name>Introduction</name>

<t>The design of Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) is generally focused on
   saving energy, which is the most constrained resource of all. Other design
   constraints, such as a limited memory capacity, duty cycling of the LLN
   devices and low-power lossy transmissions, derive from that primary concern.
   The radio (both transmitting or simply listening) is a major energy drain
   and the LLN protocols must be adapted to allow the nodes to remain sleeping
   with the radio turned off at most times.
</t><t>
   The <xref target="RFC6550">"Routing Protocol for Low Power
   and Lossy Networks"</xref> (RPL) provides IPv6 <xref target="RFC8200"/>
   routing services within such constraints.
   To save signaling and routing state in constrained networks, the RPL routing
   is only performed along a Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG)
   that is optimized to reach a Root node, as opposed to along the shortest path
   between 2 peers, whatever that would mean in each LLN.
</t><t>
   This trades the quality of peer-to-peer (P2P) paths for a vastly reduced
   amount of control traffic and routing state that would be required to
   operate an any-to-any shortest path protocol. Additionally,
   broken routes may be fixed lazily and on-demand, based on dataplane
   inconsistency discovery, which avoids wasting energy in the proactive repair
   of unused paths.
</t><t>
   Section 12 of <xref target="RFC6550"/> details the "Storing Mode of
   Operation with multicast support" with source-independent multicast routing in RPL.
</t><t>
   The classical "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (IPv6 ND) Protocol"
   <xref target="RFC4861"/> <xref target="RFC4862"/> was defined for serial
   links and shared transit media such as Ethernet at a time when broadcast
   was cheap on those media while memory for neighbor cache was expensive.
   It was thus designed as a reactive protocol that relies on caching and
   multicast operations for the Address Discovery (aka Lookup) and Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) of IPv6 unicast addresses.
   Those multicast operations typically impact every node on-link when at most
   one is really targeted, which is a waste of energy, and imply that all
   nodes are awake to hear the request, which is inconsistent with power
   saving (sleeping) modes.
</t><t>
   The original 6LoWPAN ND, <xref target="RFC6775"> "Neighbor Discovery
   Optimizations for 6LoWPAN networks"</xref>, was introduced to avoid the
   excessive use of multicast messages and enable IPv6 ND for operations over
   energy-constrained nodes.
   <xref target="RFC6775"/> changes the classical IPv6 ND model to proactively
   establish the Neighbor Cache Entry (NCE) associated to the unicast address of
   a 6LoWPAN Node (6LN) in the a 6LoWPAN Router(s) (6LR) that serves it.
   To that effect, <xref target="RFC6775"/> defines a new Address Registration
   Option (ARO) that is  placed in unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and
   Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages between the 6LN and the 6LR.
</t><t>
   <xref target="RFC8505"> "Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN Neighbor
   Discovery"</xref> updates <xref target="RFC6775"/> into a generic Address
   Registration mechanism that can be used to access services such as routing
   and ND proxy and introduces the Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)
   for that purpose. This provides a routing-agnostic interface for a host to
   request that the router injects a unicast IPv6 address in the local routing
   protocol and provide return reachability for that address.
</t><t>
   <xref target="RFC9010">"Routing for RPL Leaves"</xref> provides the router
   counterpart of the mechanism for a host that implements
   <xref target="RFC8505"/> to inject its unicast Unique Local Addresses (ULAs)
   and Global Unicast Addresses (GUAs) in RPL.
   But though RPL also provides multicast routing, 6LoWPAN ND supports only
   the registration of unicast addresses and there is no equivalent of
   <xref target="RFC9010"/> to specify the 6LR behavior upon the subscription
   of one or more multicast address.
</t><t>
   The <xref target="RFC3810">"Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2)
   for IPv6" </xref> enables the router to learn which node listens to which
   multicast address, but as the classical IPv6 ND protocol, MLD relies on
   multicasting Queries to all nodes, which is unfit for low power operations.
   As for IPv6 ND, it makes sense to let the 6LNs control when and how they
   maintain the state associated to their multicast addresses in the 6LR, e.g.,
   during their own wake time. In the case of a constrained node that already
   implements <xref target="RFC8505"/> for unicast reachability, it makes sense
   to extend to that support to subscribe the multicast addresses they listen to.
</t><t>
   This specification Extends <xref target="RFC8505"/> and <xref target="RFC9010"/>
   to add the capability for the 6LN to subscribe anycast and multicast addresses
   and for the 6LR to inject them in RPL when appropriate.
</t>


</section>	<!-- end section = "Introduction"  -->



<section> <name>Terminology</name>
  <section anchor="bcp"><name>Requirements Language</name>
  <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 BCP 14
    <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
    they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

  </t>

<t>
  In addition, the terms "Extends" and "Amends" are used as per
  <xref target="I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag" /> section 3.
</t>
  </section>	<!-- end section "Requirements Language" -->

  <section anchor="lo"><name>References</name>
    <t>
	This document uses terms and concepts that are discussed in:
    </t>
	<ul>
	<li> <xref target="RFC4861">"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6"
		</xref> and
	    <xref target="RFC4862">"IPv6 Stateless address Autoconfiguration"
		</xref>,
    </li>
	<li> <xref target="RFC6775">Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-Power
		and Lossy Networks</xref>, as well as
    </li>
    <li>
	    <xref target="RFC8505">
		"Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery"</xref> and
	</li>
    <li>
	    <xref target="RFC9008">
		"Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes,
        and IPv6-in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane"</xref>.
	</li>
	</ul>
  </section> <!--	 end section "References" -->



  <section anchor="acronyms"><name>Glossary</name>
    <t> This document uses the following acronyms:</t>
       <dl newline="false" indent="7" spacing="compact" >
       <dt>6BBR</dt><dd> 6LoWPAN Backbone Router </dd>
       <dt>6LBR</dt><dd> 6LoWPAN Border Router </dd>
       <dt>6LN</dt><dd> 6LoWPAN Node </dd>
       <dt>6LR</dt><dd> 6LoWPAN Router </dd>
       <dt>6CIO</dt><dd> Capability Indication Option </dd>
       <dt>AMC</dt><dd> Address Mapping Confirmation </dd>
       <dt>AMR</dt><dd> Address Mapping Request</dd>
       <dt>ARO</dt><dd> Address Registration Option</dd>
       <dt>DAC</dt><dd> Duplicate Address Confirmation </dd>
       <dt>DAD</dt><dd> Duplicate Address Detection </dd>
       <dt>DAR</dt><dd> Duplicate Address Request</dd>
       <dt>EARO</dt><dd> Extended Address Registration Option</dd>
       <dt>EDAC</dt><dd> Extended Duplicate Address Confirmation  </dd>
       <dt>EDAR</dt><dd> Extended Duplicate Address Request</dd>
       <dt>DODAG</dt><dd> Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph </dd>
       <dt>IR</dt><dd> Ingress Replication </dd>
       <dt>LLN</dt><dd> Low-Power and Lossy Network </dd>
       <dt>NA</dt><dd>  Neighbor Advertisement </dd>
       <dt>NCE</dt><dd>  Neighbor Cache Entry  </dd>
       <dt>ND</dt><dd>  Neighbor Discovery  </dd>
       <dt>NS</dt><dd>  Neighbor Solicitation  </dd>
       <dt>ROVR</dt><dd> Registration Ownership Verifier </dd>
       <dt>RTO</dt><dd> RPL Target Option </dd>
       <dt>RA</dt><dd>  Router Advertisement  </dd>
       <dt>RS</dt><dd>  Router Solicitation  </dd>
       <dt>TID</dt><dd> Transaction ID </dd>
       <dt>TIO</dt><dd> Transit Information Option </dd>
       </dl>


  </section>	<!-- end section "Glossary" -->


  <section anchor="terms"><name>New terms</name>

    <t> This document introduces the following terms:</t>

       <dl newline="false" indent="7" spacing="compact" >

       <dt>Origin</dt><dd> The node that issued an anycast or multicast
       advertisement, either in the form of a NS(EARO) or as a DAO(TIO, RTO) </dd>
       <dt>Merge/merging</dt><dd> The action of receiving multiple anycast or
       multicast advertisements, either internally from self, in the form of
       a NS(EARO), or as a DAO(TIO, RTO), and generating a single DAO(TIO, RTO).
       The 6RPL router maintains a state per origin for each advertised address, and merges the advertisements for all subsriptions for the same
       address in a single advertisement.
       A RPL router that merges becomes the origin of the merged advertisement
       and uses its own values for the Path Sequence and ROVR fields.
       </dd>
       <dt>Subscribe/subscription</dt><dd> The special form of
       registration that leverages NS(EARO) to register (subscribe)
       a multicast or an anycast address.
       </dd>

       </dl>


  </section> <!--	 end section "New terms" -->

</section>	<!-- end section "Terminology" -->



<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->

<section anchor="overview"><name>Overview</name>
   <t>
   This specification Extends <xref target="RFC8505"/> and inherits from
   <xref target="RFC8928"/> to provide a registration method - called
   subscription in this case - for anycast and multicast address.
   <xref target="RFC8505"/> is agnostic to the routing protocol in which the
   address may be redistributed.
   </t>
<t>

As opposed to unicast addresses,  there might be multiple registrations from multiple parties for the same address. The router conserves one registration per party per multicast or anycast address, but injects the route into the routing protocol only once for each address, asynchronously to the registration. On the other hand, the validation exchange with the registrar (6LBR) is still needed if the router checks the right for the host to listen to the anycast or  multicast address.
</t>

<figure anchor='figSub'><name> Registration Flow for an anycast or multicast Address</name>
 <artwork><![CDATA[
    6LoWPAN Node           6LR             6LBR
      (host1)           (router)        (registrar)
         |                  |               |
         |   DMB link       |               |
         |                  |               |
         |  ND-Classic RS   |               |
         |----------------->|               |
         |------------>     |               |
         |------------------------>         |
         |  ND-Classic RA   |               |
         |<-----------------|               |
         |                  |               |
         |  NS(EARO)        |               |
         |----------------->|               |
         |                  | Extended DAR  |
         |                  |-------------->|
         |                  |               |
         |                  | Extended DAC  |
         |                  |<--------------|
         |        NA(EARO)  |
         |<-----------------|<inject route> ->
         |                  |
                   ...
      (host2)           (router)           6LBR
         |  NS(EARO)        |               |
         |----------------->|               |
         |                  |               |
         |                  | Extended DAR  |
         |                  |-------------->|
         |                  |               |
         |                  | Extended DAC  |
         |                  |<--------------|
         |        NA(EARO)  |               |
         |<-----------------|               |
                   ...
      (host1)           (router)
         |  NS(EARO)        |               |
         |----------------->|               |
         |                  |               |
         |        NA(EARO)  |               |
         |<-----------------|               |
                   ...
         |                  |<maintain route> ->
                   ...
]]></artwork>
</figure>
   <t>In classical networks, <xref target="RFC8505"/> may be used for an ND
   proxy operation as specified in <xref target="RFC8929"/>, or redistributed in
   a full-fledged routing protocol such as
   EVPN <xref target="I-D.thubert-bess-secure-evpn-mac-signaling"/> or
   RIFT <xref target="I-D.ietf-rift-rift"/>. The device mobility can be
   gracefully supported as long has the routers can exchange and make sense of
   the sequence counter in the TID field of the EARO.
   </t>
   <t> In the case of LLNs, RPL <xref target="RFC6550"/> is the routing protocol
   of choice and <xref target="RFC9010"/> specifies how the unicast address
   advertised with <xref target="RFC8505"/> is redistributed in RPL. This
   specification also provides RPL extensions for anycast and multicast address
   operation and redistribution. In the RPL case and unless specified otherwise,
   the behavior of the 6LBR that acts as RPL Root, of the intermediate routers
   down the RPL graph, of the 6LR that act as access routers and of the 6LNs
   that are the RPL-unaware destinations, is the same as for unicast. In
   particular, forwarding a packet happens as specified in section 11 of
   <xref target="RFC6550"/>, including loop avoidance and detection, though in
   the case of multicast multiple copies might be generated.
   </t>
   <t><xref target="RFC8505"/> is a pre-requisite to this specification.
   A node that implements this MUST also implement <xref target="RFC8505"/>.
   This specification modifies existing options and updates the associated
   behaviors to enable the Registration for Multicast Addresses as an extension
   to <xref target="RFC8505"/>.  As for the
   unicast address registration, the subscription to anycast and multicast
   addresses is agnostic to the routing protocol in which this information may
   be redistributed, though protocol extensions would be needed in the protocol
   when multicast services are not available.
   </t>
   <t>
   This specification also Extends <xref target="RFC6550"/> and
   <xref target="RFC9010"/> in the case of a route-over multilink subnet based
   on the RPL routing protocol, to add multicast ingress replication in
   Non-Storing Mode and anycast support in both Storing and Non-Storing modes.
   A 6LR that implements the RPL extensions specified therein MUST also
   implement <xref target="RFC9010"/>.
   </t>
    <t>
    <xref target="figref"/> illustrates the classical situation of an LLN as a
    single IPv6 Subnet, with a 6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR) that acts as Root
    for RPL operations and maintains a registry of the active registrations as
    an abstract data structure called an Address Registrar for 6LoWPAN ND.
    </t>

    <t>
	The LLN may be a hub-and-spoke access link such	as (Low-Power) Wi-Fi
    <xref target="IEEE80211"/> and Bluetooth (Low Energy)
    <xref target="IEEE802151"/>, or a Route-Over LLN such as the Wi-SUN
    <xref target="I-D.heile-lpwan-wisun-overview"/>  and 6TiSCH
    <xref target="RFC9030"/> meshes that leverages 6LoWPAN
    <xref target="RFC4919"/> <xref target="RFC6282"/>
    and RPL <xref target="RFC6550"/> over <xref target="IEEE802154"/>.
    </t>

    <figure anchor="figref" align="center"><name>Wireless Mesh</name>
    <artwork><![CDATA[
                  |
      ----+-------+------------
          |     Wire side
       +------+
       | 6LBR |
       |(Root)|
       +------+
       o  o  o  Wireless side
   o   o o   o  o o
  o  o  o o   o  o  o
 o  o  o   LLN  o   +---+
   o  o   o  o   o  |6LR|
   o o  o o   o     +---+
    o   o   o o o  o    z
   o  o oo o  o        +---+
          o            |6LN|
                       +---+
    ]]></artwork></figure>


   <t>
   A leaf acting as a 6LN registers its unicast addresses to a RPL
   router acting as a 6LR, using a layer-2 unicast NS message with an EARO as
   specified in <xref target="RFC8505"/>.
   The registration state is periodically renewed by the Registering Node,
   before the lifetime indicated in the EARO expires. As for unicast IPv6
   addresses, the 6LR uses an EDAR/EDAC exchange with the 6LBR to notify the
   6LBR of the presence of the listeners.
   </t><t>
   This specification updates the EARO with a new two-bit field, the P-Field,
   as detailed in <xref target="R8505E"/>.
   The existing R flag that requests reachability for the registered address
   gets new behavior.
   With this extension the 6LNs can now subscribe to the anycast and multicast
   addresses they listen to, using a new P-Field in the EARO to signal that the
   registration is for a multicast address. Multiple 6LN may subscribe to
   the same multicast address to the same 6LR. Note the use of the term
   "subscribe": using the EARO registration mechanism, a node registers the
   unicast addresses that it owns, but subscribes to the multicast addresses
   that it listens to.
   </t><t>
   With this specification, the 6LNs can also subscribe the anycast addresses
   they accept, using a new P-Field in the EARO to signal that the registration
   is for an anycast address. As for multicast, multiple 6LN may subscribe the
   same anycast address to the same 6LR.
   </t><t>
   If the R flag is set in the subscription of one or more 6LNs for the same
   address, the 6LR injects the anycast addresses and multicast addresses of a
   scope larger than link-scope in RPL, based on the longest subscription
   lifetime across the active subscriptions for the address.
   </t><t>
   In the RPL "Storing Mode of Operation with multicast support", the DAO
   messages for the multicast address percolate along the RPL preferred parent
   tree and mark a subtree that becomes the multicast tree for that multicast
   address, with 6LNs that subscribed to the address as the leaves.
   As prescribed in section 12 of <xref target="RFC6550"/>, the 6LR forwards a
   multicast packet as an individual unicast MAC frame to each peer along the
   multicast tree, excepting to the node it received the packet from.
   </t><t>
   In the new RPL "Non-Storing Mode of Operation with multicast support" that is
   introduced here, the DAO messages announce the multicast addresses as Targets
   though never as Transit. The multicast distribution is an ingress replication
   whereby the Root encapsulates the multicast packets to all the 6LRs that are
   transit for the multicast address, using the same source-routing header as
   for unicast targets attached to the respective 6LRs.
   </t><t>
   Broadcasting is typically unreliable in LLNs (no ack) and forces a listener
   to remain awake, so is generally discouraged. The expectation is thus that in
   either mode, the 6LRs deliver the multicast packets as individual unicast MAC
   frames to each of the 6LNs that subscribed to the multicast address.
   </t><t>
   With this specification, anycast addresses can be injected in RPL in both
   Storing and Non-Storing modes. In Storing Mode the RPL router accepts DAO
   from multiple children for the same anycast address, but only forwards a
   packet to one of the children.
   In Non-Storing Mode, the Root maintains the list of all the RPL nodes that
   announced the anycast address as Target, but forwards a given packet to only
   one of them.
   </t>
 <t>For backward compatibility, this specification allows to build a single
    DODAG signaled as MOP 1, that conveys anycast, unicast and multicast packets
    using the same source routing mechanism, more in <xref target="deploy"/>.
   </t>
 <t>
   It is also possible to leverage this specification between the 6LN and the
   6LR for the registration of unicast, anycast and multicast IPv6 addresses in
   networks that are not necessarily LLNs, and/or where the routing protocol
   between the 6LR and above is not necessarily RPL. In that case, the
   distribution of packets between the 6LR and the 6LNs may effectively rely
   on a broadcast or multicast support at the lower layer, e.g., using this
   specification as a replacement to MLD in an Ethernet bridged domain and
   still using either plain MAC-layer broadcast or snooping this protocol to
   control the flooding. It may also rely on overlay services to optimize
   the impact of Broadcast, Unknown and Multicast (BUM) over a fabric, e.g.
   registering with <xref target="I-D.thubert-bess-secure-evpn-mac-signaling"/>
   and forwarding with <xref target="I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir"/>. </t>
 <t>
   For instance, it is possible to operate a RPL Instance in the new
   "Non-Storing Mode of Operation with multicast support" (while possibly
   signaling a MOP of 1) and use <xref target="RFC7731">"Multicast Protocol
   for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)"</xref> for the multicast operation.
   MPL floods the DODAG with the multicast messages independently of the RPL
   DODAG topologies. Two variations are possible:
</t>
<ul>
<li>
   In one possible variation, all the 6LNs set the R flag in the EARO for a
   multicast target, upon which the 6LRs send a unicast DAO message to the
   Root; the Root filters out the multicast messages for which there is no
   listener and only floods when there is.
</li>
<li>
   In a simpler variation, the 6LNs do not set the R flag and the Root floods
   all the multicast packets over the whole DODAG. Using configuration, it is
   also possible to control the behavior of the 6LR to ignore the R flag and
   either always or never send the DAO message, and/or to control the Root and
   specify which groups it should flood or not flood.

</li>
 </ul>
 <t>
   Note that if the configuration instructs the 6LR not to send the DAO, then
   MPL can really by used in conjunction with RPL Storing Mode as well.
 </t>

</section> <!-- end section "Overview" -->


<!-- Target Address is not a multicast address. -->
   <section anchor="tgt4861"><name>Updating RFC 4861</name>
   <t>
   Section 7.1 of <xref target="RFC4861"/> requires to silently discard NS and
   NA packets when the Target Address is a multicast address. This specification
   Amends <xref target="RFC4861"/> by allowing to advertise multicast and anycast
   addresses in the Target Address field when the NS message is used for a
   registration, per section 5.5 of <xref target="RFC8505"/>.
    </t>
    </section ><!-- Updating RFC 4861 -->
    <section anchor="CIO"><name>Extending RFC 7400</name>

    <t>
   This specification Extends <xref target="RFC7400"> "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic
   Header Compression for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks
   (6LoWPANs)"</xref> by defining a new capability bit for use in the
   6CIO.  <xref target="RFC7400"/> was already extended by <xref target="RFC8505"/> for use in IPv6 ND messages.
    </t>
    <t>
   The new "Registration for xcast Address Supported" (X) flag indicates
   to the 6LN that the 6LR accepts unicast, multicast, and anycast address
   registrations as specified in this document and will ensure that packets
   for the Registered Address will be routed to the 6LNs that registered with
   the R flag set appropriately.
    </t>
    <t>
   <xref target="fig6CIO"/> illustrates the X flag in its suggested position
   (8, counting 0 to 15 in network order in the 16-bit array), to be confirmed by IANA.
   </t>
   <figure anchor="fig6CIO"><name>New Capability Bits in the 6CIO</name>
   <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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |   Length = 1  |    Reserved   |X|A|D|L|B|P|E|G|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Reserved                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ]]></artwork>
    </figure>

    <t> New Option Field:    </t>
	<dl>
	<dt>X</dt><dd> 1-bit flag: "Registration for Unicast, Multicast, and Anycast
    Addresses Supported" </dd>
	</dl>

    </section>	<!-- end section "Extending RFC 7400" -->




<section anchor="coex"><name>Updating RFC 6550</name>
<t>
   <xref target="RFC6550"/> uses the Path Sequence in the Transit Information
   Option (TIO) to retain only the freshest unicast route and remove stale ones,
   e.g., in the case of mobility. <xref target="RFC9010"/> copies the TID from
   the EARO into the Path Sequence, and the ROVR field into the associated RPL
   Target Option (RTO).
   This way, it is possible to identify both the registering node and the
   order of registration in RPL for each individual advertisement, so the
   most recent path and lifetime values are used.
</t><t>

   This specification requires the use of the ROVR field as the indication of the origin of a Target advertisement in the RPL DAO messages, as specified
   in section 6.1 of <xref target="RFC9010"/>.
   For anycast and multicast advertisements (in NS or DAO messages), multiple
   origins may subscribe to the same address, in which case the multiple
   advertisements from the different or unknown origins are merged by the common
   parent; in that case, the common parent becomes the origin of the merged
   advertisements and uses its own ROVR value. On the other hand, a parent that
   propagates an advertisement from a single origin uses the original ROVR in
   the propagated RTO, as it does for unicast address advertisements, so the
   origin is recognised across multiple hops.

</t><t>
   This specification Extends <xref target="RFC6550"/> to require that,
   for anycast and multicast advertisements, the Path Sequence is used
   between and only between advertisements for the same Target and from the same
   origin (i.e, with the same ROVR value); in that case, only the freshest advertisement is retained. But the freshness comparison cannot apply if the
   origin is not determined (i.e., the origin did not support this specification).
</t><t>
   <xref target="RFC6550"/> uses the Path Lifetime in the TIO to indicate the
   remaining time for which the advertisement is valid for unicast route
   determination, and a Path Lifetime value of 0 invalidates that route.
   <xref target="RFC9010"/> maps the Address Registration lifetime in the EARO
   and the Path Lifetime in the TIO so they are comparable when both forms of
   advertisements are received.
</t><t>
   The RPL router that merges multiple advertisement for the same anycast or
   multicast addresses MUST use and advertise the longest remaining lifetime
   across all the origins of the advertisements for that address.
   When the lifetime expires, the router sends a no-path DAO (i.e. the lifetime
   is 0) using the same value for ROVR value as for the previous advertisements,
   that is either self or the single descendant that advertised the Target.
</t><t>

   Note that the Registration Lifetime, TID and ROVR fields are also placed in
   the EDAR message so the state created by EDAR is also comparable with that created upon an NS(EARO) or a DAO message. For simplicity the text below
   mentions only NS(EARO) but applies also to EDAR.
</t>
<section anchor="mop3"><name>Updating MOP 3</name>
<t>
   RPL supports multicast operations in the "Storing Mode of Operation with
   multicast support" (MOP 3) which provides source-independent multicast
   routing in RPL, as prescribed in section 12 of <xref target="RFC6550"/>.
   MOP 3 is a storing Mode of Operation. This operation builds a multicast
   tree within the RPL DODAG for each multicast address. This specification
   provides additional details for the MOP 3 operation.
</t> <t>
   The expectation in MOP 3 is that the unicast traffic also follows the
   Storing Mode of Operation. But this is rarely the case in LLN deployments
   of RPL where the "Non-Storing Mode of Operation" (MOP 1) is the norm.
   Though it is preferred to build separate RPL Instances, one in MOP 1 and one
   in MOP 3, this specification allows hybrid use of the Storing Mode for multicast
   and Non-Storing Mode for unicast in the same RPL Instance, more in
   <xref target="deploy"/>.
</t><t>
   For anycast and multicast advertisements, including MOP 3, the ROVR field
   is placed in the RPL Target Option as specified in <xref target=
   "RFC9010"/> for both MOP 3 and MOP 5 as it is for unicast advertisements.
</t> <t>
   Though it was implicit with <xref target="RFC6550"/>, this specification
   clarifies that the freshness comparison based on the Path Sequence is not
   used when the origin cannot be determined, which is the case there.
   The comparison is to be used only between advertisements from the same
   origin, which is either an individual subscriber, or a descendant that
   merged multiple advertisements.
</t> <t>
   A RPL router maintains a remaining Path Lifetime for each DAO that it
   receives for a multicast target, and sends its own DAO for that target with
   the longest remaining lifetime across its listening children. If the router
   has only one descendant listening, it propagates the TID and ROVR as
   received. Conversely, if the router merges multiple advertisements (including possibly one for self as a listener), the router uses its own ROVR and TID values.
</t>
  </section>	<!-- end section "Updating MOP 3" -->



<section anchor="mop5"><name>New Non-Storing Multicast MOP</name>
<t>
   This specification adds a "Non-Storing Mode of Operation with ingress
   replication multicast support" (MOP to be assigned by IANA) whereby the
   non-storing Mode DAO to
   the Root may advertise a multicast address in the RPL Target Option (RTO),
   whereas the Transit Information Option (TIO) cannot.

</t> <t>
   In that mode, the RPL Root performs an ingress replication (IR) operation on
   the multicast packets, meaning that it transmits one copy of each multicast
   packet to each 6LR that is a transit for the multicast target, using the same
   source routing header and encapsulation as it would for a unicast packet for
   a RPL Unaware Leaf (RUL) attached to that 6LR.
</t> <t>
   For the intermediate routers, the packet appears as any source routed unicast
   packet. The difference shows only at the 6LR, that terminates the source
   routed path and forwards the multicast packet to all 6LNs that registered
   for the multicast address.
</t> <t>
   For a packet that is generated by the Root, this means that the Root builds a
   source routing header as shown in section 8.1.3 of <xref target="RFC9008"/>,
   but for which the last and only the last address is multicast.
   For a packet that is not generated by the Root, the Root encapsulates the
   multicast packet as per section 8.2.4 of <xref target="RFC9008"/>. In that
   case, the outer header is purely unicast, and the encapsulated packet is
   purely multicast.
</t><t>
   For anycast and multicast advertisements in NA (at the 6LR) and DAO (at the Root) messages, as discussed in <xref target="mop3"/>, the freshness
   comparison based on the TID field is applied only between messages from the
   same origin, as determined by the same value in the ROVR field.
</t><t>
   The Root maintains a remaining Path Lifetime for each advertisement it receives,
   and the 6LRs generate the DAO for multicast addresses with the longest
   remaining lifetime across its registered 6LNs, using its own ROVR and TID when multiple 6LNs subscribed, or if this 6LR is one of the subscribers.
</t> <t>
   For this new mode as well, this specification allows to enable the operation
   in a MOP 1 brown field, more in  <xref target="deploy"/>.
</t>

</section>	<!-- end section "New Non-Storing Multicast MOP" -->


<section anchor="anic"><name>RPL Anycast Operation</name>
<t>
   With multicast, the address has a recognizable format, and a multicast packet
   is to be delivered to all the active subscribers.
   In contrast, the format of an anycast address is not distinguishable
   from that of unicast. A legacy node may issue a DAO message without setting
   the P-Field to 2, the unicast behavior may apply to anycast traffic in a subDAGs.
   That message will be undistinguishable from a unicast advertisement and the
   anycast behavior in the dataplane can only happen if all the nodes that
   advertise the same anycast address are synchronized with the same TID. That
   way, the multiple paths can remain in the RPL DODAG.
</t> <t>
   With the P-Field set to 2, this specification alleviates the issue of synchronizing
   the TIDs and ROVR fields. As for multicast, the freshness comparison based
   on the TID (in EARO) and the Path Sequence (in TIO) is ignored unless the
   messages have the same origin, as inferred by the same ROVR in RTO and/or
   EARO, and the latest value of the lifetime is retained for each origin.
   </t>
   <t>
   A RPL router that propagates an advertisement from a single origin uses
   the ROVR and Path Sequence from that origin, whereas a router that merges
   multiple subscriptions uses its own ROVR and Path Sequence and the
   longest lifetime over the different advertisements.
   A target is routed as anycast by a parent (or the Root) that received at
   least one DAO message for that target with the P-Field set to 2.
</t> <t>
   As opposed to multicast, the anycast operation described therein applies to
   both addresses and prefixes, and the P-Field can be set to 2 for both.
   An external destination (address or prefix) that may be injected as a RPL
   target from multiple border routers should be injected as anycast in RPL to
   enable load balancing. A mobile target that is multihomed should in contrast
   be advertised as unicast over the multiple interfaces to favor the TID
   comparison and vs. the multipath load balancing.
</t> <t>
   For either multicast and anycast, there can be multiple subscriptions from
   multiple origins, each using a different value of the ROVR field that
   identifies the individual subscription. The 6LR  maintains a subscription
   state per value of the ROVR per multicast or anycast address, but inject
   the route into RPL only once for each address, and in the case of a
   multicast address, only if its scope is larger than link-scope (3 or more).
   Since the subscriptions are considered separate, the check on the TID that
   acts as subscription sequence only applies to the subscription with the
   same ROVR.
</t>  <t>
   Like the 6LR, a RPL router in Storing Mode propagates the merged advertisement to its parent(s) in DAO messages once and only once
   for each address, but it retains a routing table entry for each of the
   children that advertised the address.
</t> <t>
   When forwarding multicast packets down the DODAG, the RPL router copies
   all the children that advertised the address in their DAO messages. In
   contrast, when forwarding anycast packets down the DODAG, the RPL router
   MUST copy one and only one of the children that advertised the address in
   their DAO messages, and forward to one parent if there is no such child.
</t>

  </section>	<!-- end section "RPL Anycast Operation" -->


<section anchor="newpf"><name>New Registered Address Type Indicator P-Field</name>
<t> The new Registered Address Type Indicator (RATInd) is created for use in RPL
    Target Option, the EARO, and the header of EDAR messages.
    The RATInd indicates whether an address is unicast, multicast, or anycast.
    The new 2-bits P-Field is defined to transport the RATInd in different
    protocols.
</t>
<t>
    The P-Field can take the following values:
</t>
	 <table anchor="pVALS" ><name>P-Field Values</name>
     <thead>
      <tr><td>P-Field Value</td><td>Registered Address Type</td></tr>
     </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>0</td><td>Registration for a Unicast Address</td></tr>
      <tr><td>1</td><td>Registration for a Multicast Address</td></tr>
      <tr><td>2</td><td>Registration for an Anycast Address</td></tr>
      <tr><td>3</td><td>Reserved, MUST be ignored by the receiver</td></tr>
     </tbody>
    </table>  <!-- end table "P-Field values" -->

</section><!-- New P-Field -->





<section anchor="newrtoflg"><name>New RPL Target Option P-Field</name>
<t>
   <xref target="RFC6550"/> recognizes a multicast address by its format
   (as specified in section 2.7 of <xref target="RFC4291"/>) and applies the
   specified multicast operation if the address is recognized as multicast.
   This specification updates <xref target="RFC6550"/> to add the 2-bits P-Field
   (see <xref target="newpf"/>) to the RTO to indicate that the target address
   is to be processed as unicast, multicast or anycast.
</t> <ul>
   <li>An RTO that has the P-Field set to 0 is called a unicast RTO.</li>
   <li>An RTO that has the P-Field set to 1 is called a multicast RTO.</li>
   <li>An RTO that has the P-Field set to 2 is called an anycast RTO.</li>


</ul> <t>
   The suggested position for the P-Field is 2 counting from 0 to
   7 in network order as shown in <xref target="rto-fmt"/>, based on figure 4
   of <xref target="RFC9010"/> which defines the flags in position 0 and 1:
</t>
<figure anchor="rto-fmt"><name>Format of the RPL Target Option</name>
              <artwork align="center">
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   Type = 0x05 | Option Length |F|X| P |ROVRsz | Prefix Length |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  |                Target Prefix (Variable Length)                |
  .                                                               .
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
 ...            Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR)           ...
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 </artwork>
</figure>
    <t> New and updated Option Fields:    </t>
	<dl>
	<dt>P:</dt><dd>2-bit field; see <xref target="newpf"/></dd>
	</dl>
</section>	<!-- end section "New RPL Target Option Flags" -->
</section>	<!-- end section "Updating RFC 6550" -->

<section anchor="updating"><name>Updating RFC 8505</name>





<section anchor="R8505E"><name>Placing the New P-Field in the EARO</name>

<t>
   Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC8505"/> defines the EARO as an extension to
   the ARO option defined in <xref target="RFC6775"/>.
   This specification adds a new P-Field placed in the EARO flags that is set as
   follows:

</t>
<ul>
<li>
   The P-Field is set to 1 to signal that the
   Registered Address is a multicast address. When the P-Field is 1 and the R flag
   is set to 1 as well, the 6LR that
   conforms to this specification joins the multicast stream,  e.g., by
   injecting the address in the RPL multicast support that is extended in this
   specification for Non-Storing Mode.
</li>
<li>
   The P-Field is set to 2 to signal that the Registered Address is
   an anycast address. When the P-Field is 2 and the R flag is 1, the 6LR that
   conforms to this specification injects the anycast address in the routing
   protocol(s) that it participates to, e.g., in the RPL anycast support that
   is introduced in this specification for both Storing and Non-Storing Modes.
</li>
</ul>
<t>
   <xref target="EARO"/> illustrates the P-Field in its suggested
   positions (2, counting 0 to 7 in network order in the
   8-bit array), to be confirmed by IANA.
</t>
 <figure anchor="EARO"><name>EARO Option Format</name>
 <artwork align="center">
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Type      |     Length    |    Status     |    Opaque     |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |Rsv| P | I |R|T|     TID       |     Registration Lifetime     |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
 ...             Registration Ownership Verifier                 ...
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork>
 </figure><!-- end figure "EARO Option Format" -->

    <t> New and updated Option Fields:    </t>
	<dl>
	<dt>Rsv:</dt><dd> 2-bit field; reserved, MUST be set to 0 and ignored by the receiver</dd>
	<dt>P:</dt><dd>2-bit P-Field; see <xref target="newpf"/></dd>

	</dl>

</section> <!-- end section "Placing the New P-Field in the EARO" -->

<section anchor="R8505D"><name>Placing the New P-Field in the EDAR Message</name>

<t>
   Section 4 of <xref target="RFC6775"/> provides the same format for DAR and
   DAC messages but the status field is only used in DAC message and has to
   set to zero in DAC messages. <xref target="RFC8505"/> extends the DAC message
   as an EDAC but does not change the status field in the EDAR.

</t>
<t>
   This specification repurposes the status field in the EDAR as a Flags field.
   It adds a new P-Field to the EDAR flags field to match the P-Field in the
   EARO and signal the new types of registration. The EDAC message is not
   modified.
</t>
<t>
   <xref target="EDAR"/> illustrates the P-Field in its suggested position
   (0, counting 0 to 7 in network order in the 8-bit array), to be confirmed by
   IANA.
</t>
 <figure anchor="EDAR"><name>Extended Duplicate Address Request Message Format</name>
 <artwork align="center">
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     Type      |CodePfx|CodeSfx|          Checksum             |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | P | Reserved  |     TID       |     Registration Lifetime     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
...            Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR)           ...
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                                                               +
 |                                                               |
 +                       Registered Address                      +
 |                                                               |
 +                                                               +
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork>
 </figure><!-- end figure "EDAR Message Format" -->

    <t> New and updated Option Fields:    </t>
	<dl>
	<dt>Reserved</dt><dd> 6-bit field: reserved, MUST be set to 0 and ignored by the receiver</dd>
	<dt>P:</dt><dd>2-bit field; see <xref target="newpf"/></dd>
    </dl>

</section> <!-- end section "Placing the New P-Field in the EDAR Message" -->



<section anchor="multireg"><name>Registration Extensions</name>
<t>
   <xref target="RFC8505"/> specifies the following behaviours:
</t>
<ul>
   <li>
   A router that expects to reboot may send a final RA message, upon which
   nodes should subscribe elsewhere or redo the subscription to the same router
   upon reboot.
   In all other cases, a node reboot is silent.
   When the node comes back to life, existing registration
   state might be lost if it was not persisted, e.g., in persistent memory.
   </li>
   <li>
   Only unicast addresses can be registered.
   </li>
   <li>
   The 6LN must register all its ULA and GUA with a NS(EARO).
   </li>
   <li>
   The 6LN may set the R flag in the EARO to obtain return reachability services by the 6LR, e.g., through ND proxy operations, or by injecting the route in a route-over subnet.
   </li>
   <li>
   the 6LR maintains a registration state per Registered Address, including an
   NCE with the Link Layer Address (LLA) of the Registered Node (the 6LN here).
   </li>
   </ul>

  <t>
   This specification adds the following behavior:
  </t>
   <ul>
   <li>The concept of subscription is introduced for anycast and multicast
   addresses as an extension to the unicast address registration.
   The respective operations are similar from the perspective of the 6LN, but
   show important differences on the router side, which maintains a separate
   state for each origin and merges them in its own advertisements.
   </li>
   <li>
   <t>
   New ARO Statuses are introduced to indicate a "Registration Refresh Request"
   and an "Invalid Registration" (see <xref target="AROstat"/>).
   </t>
   <t>
   The former status is used in asynchronous NA(EARO) messages to indicate to peer 6LNs
   that they are requested to reregister all addresses that were previously
   registered to the originating node. The NA message may be sent to a unicast
   or a multicast link-scope address and should be contained within the L2 range
   where nodes may effectively have registered/subscribed to this router, e.g.,
   a radio broadcast domain. The latter is generic to any error in the EARO, and is used
   e.g., to report that the P-Field is not consistent with the Registered Address 
   in NS(EARO) and EDAR messages.
   </t>
   <t>
   A device that wishes to refresh its state, e.g., upon reboot if it may have
   lost some registration state, SHOULD send an asynchronous NA(EARO) with this
   new status value.
   That asynchronous multicast NA(EARO) SHOULD be sent to the all-nodes link
   scope multicast address (ff02::1) and Target MUST be set to the link local
   address that was exposed previously by this node to accept registrations.
   </t>
   <t>
   The TID field in the multicast NA(EARO) is the one associated to the
   Target and follows the same rules as the TID in the NS(EARO) for the same
   Target, see section 5.2 of <xref target="RFC8505"/>. It is incremented by the
   sender each time it sends a new series of NS and/or NA with the EARO about
   the Target. By default the TID initial setting is 252.
   The TID indicates a reboot when it is in the "straight" part of the lollipop,
   between the initial value and 255. After that the TID remains below 128 as
   long as the device is alive. An asynchronous multicast NA(EARO) with a TID
   below 128 MUST NOT be considered as indicating a reboot.
   </t>
   <t>
   In an unreliable environment, the asynchronous multicast NA(EARO) message MAY
   be resent in a fast sequence for reliability, in which case the TID MUST be
   incremented each time.
   If the sender is a 6LN that also registers the Target to one or more 6LR(s),
   then it MUST reregister before the current value of the TID and the last
   registered value are no more comparable, see section 7.2 of
   <xref target="RFC6550"/>.
   </t>
   <t>
   The multicast NA(EARO) SHOULD be resent enough times for the TID to be issued
   with the value of 255 so the next NA(EARO) after the initial series is
   outside the lollipop and not confused with a reboot.
   A 6LN that has recently processed the multicast NA(EARO) indicating
   "Registration Refresh Request" ignores the next multicast NA(EARO) with
   the same status and a newer TID received within the duration of the initial
   series.
   </t>
   <t>
   By default, the duration of the initial series is 10 seconds, the interval
   between retries is 1 second, and the number of retries is 3.
   The best values for the duration, the number of retries and the TID initial
   setting depend on the environment and SHOULD be configurable.
   </t>
   </li>
   <li>
   <t>
   A new IPv6 ND Consistent Uptime option (CUO) is introduced to be placed in IPv6 ND
   messages. The CUO indicates allows to figure the state consistency between the sender and the
   receiver. For instance, a node that rebooted needs to reset its uptime to 0.
   A Router that changed information like a prefix information option has to advertise an
   incremented state sequence. To that effect, the CUO carries a Node State
   Sequence Information (NSSI) and a Consistent Uptime.
   See <xref target="CUO"/> for the option details.
   </t>
   <t>
   A node that receives the CUO checks whether it is indicative of a desynchronization
   between peers. A peer that discovers that a router has changed should reassess which
   addresses it formed based on the new PIOs from that router, and resync the state that
   it installed in the router, e.g., the registration state for its addresses.
   In the process, the peer may attempt to form new address and register them, deprecate
   old addresses and deregister them using a Lifetime of 0, and reform any potentially lost state,
   e.g., by re-registering an existing address that it will keep using. A loss of state is
   inferred if the Consistent Uptime of the peer is less than the time since the state was installed,
   or the NSSI is incremented for a consistent uptime.
   </t>
   </li>
   <li>
   Registration for multicast and anycast addresses is now supported. The P-Field is added to the EARO to signal when the registered address is anycast
   or multicast. If the value of the P-Field is not consistent with the Registered Address, 
   e.g., the Registered Address is a multicast address (section 2.4 of <xref target="RFC4291"/>)
   and the P-Field indicates a value that is not 1, or the other way around, then the message, NS(EARO) or EDAR, MUST be dropped, and the receiving node MAY either reply with a status of 12 "Invalid Registration" or remain silent.
   </li>
   <li>
   The Status field in the EDAR message that was reserved and not used in RFC 8505 is repurposed to transport the flags to signal multicast and anycast.
   </li>
   <li>
   The 6LN MUST also subscribe all the IPv6 multicast addresses that it listens
   to but the all-nodes link-scope multicast address FF02::1
   <xref target="RFC4291"/> which is implicitly registered, and it MUST set the
   P-Field to 1 in the EARO for those addresses.
   </li>
   <li>
   The 6LN MAY set the R flag in the EARO to obtain the delivery of the
   multicast packets by the 6LR, e.g., by MLD proxy operations, or by injecting
   the address in a route-over subnet or in the Protocol Independent Multicast
   <xref target="RFC7761"/> protocol.
   </li>
   <li>
   The 6LN MUST also subscribe all the IPv6 anycast addresses that it supports
   and it MUST set the P-Field in the EARO to 2 for those addresses.
   </li>
   <li>
   The 6LR and the 6LBR are extended to accept more than one subscription for
   the same address when it is anycast or multicast, since multiple 6LNs may
   subscribe to the same address of these types. In both cases, the
   Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) in the EARO identifies uniquely
   a registration within the namespace of the Registered Address.
   </li>
   <li>
   The 6LR MUST also consider that all the nodes that registered an address to
   it (as known by the SLLAO) also registered to the all nodes link-scope
   multicast address FF02::1 <xref target="RFC4291"/>.
   </li>
   <li>
    The 6LR MUST maintain a subscription state per tuple (IPv6 address, ROVR)
    for both anycast and multicast types of address. It SHOULD notify the 6LBR
    with an EDAR message, unless it determined that the 6LBR is legacy and does
    not support this specification. In turn, the 6LBR MUST maintain a
    subscription state per tuple (IPv6 address, ROVR) for both anycast and
    multicast types of address.
   </li>

   </ul>

</section> <!-- end section "Registering Extensions"-->

</section> <!-- end section "Updating RFC 8505"-->


<section anchor="updating2"><name>Updating RFC 9010</name>
<t>
   <xref target="RFC9010"/> specifies the following behaviours:
</t>
   <ul>
   <li>
   The 6LR injects only unicast routes in RPL
   </li>
   <li>
   Upon a registration with the R flag set to 1 in the EARO, the 6LR injects the address in the RPL unicast support.
   </li><li>
   Upon receiving a packet directed to a unicast address for which it has an
   active registration, the 6LR delivers the packet as a unicast layer-2 frame
   to the LLA the nodes that registered the unicast address.
   </li>
   </ul>
   <t>
   This specification adds the following behavior:
   </t>
   <ul>
   <li>
   Upon a subscription with the R flag and the P-Field both set to 1 in the EARO,
   if the scope of the multicast address is above link-scope <xref target="RFC7346"/>,
   then the 6LR injects the address in the RPL multicast support and sets the P
   field in the RTO to 1 as well.
   </li><li>
   Upon a subscription with the R set to 1 and the P-Field set to 2 in the EARO,
   the 6LR injects the address in the new RPL anycast support and sets the P-Field
   to 2 in the RTO.
   </li><li>
   Upon receiving a packet directed to a multicast address for which it has at
   least one subscription, the 6LR delivers a copy of the packet as a unicast
   layer-2 frame to the LLA of each of the nodes that registered to that
   multicast address.
   </li><li>
   Upon receiving a packet directed to a anycast address for which it has at
   least one subscription, the 6LR delivers a copy of the packet as a unicast
   layer-2 frame to the LLA of exactly one of the nodes that registered to that
   multicast address.
   </li>
   </ul>


</section> <!-- end section "Updating RFC 9010"-->


<section  anchor="sec8928"><name>Leveraging RFC 8928</name>
<t>
    <xref target="RFC8928"> Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for
    Low-Power and Lossy Networks </xref> was defined to protect the ownership of unicast IPv6 addresses that are registered with
    <xref target="RFC8505"/>.

</t>
<t>
    With <xref target="RFC8928"/>, it is possible for a node to autoconfigure a
    pair of public and private keys and use them to sign the registration of
    addresses that are either autoconfigured or obtained through other methods.

</t>
<t>
    The first hop router (the 6LR) may then validate a registration and
    perform source address validation on packets coming from the sender node
    (the 6LN).

</t>
<t>
    Anycast and multicast addresses are not owned by one node. Multiple nodes
    may subscribe to the same address. Also, anycast and multicast addresses
    are not used to source traffic.
    In that context, the method specified in <xref target="RFC8928"/> cannot be used with autoconfigured keypairs to protect a single ownership.
</t>
<t>
    For an anycast or a multicast address, it is still possible to leverage
    <xref target="RFC8928"/> to enforce the right to subscribe.
    If <xref target="RFC8928"/> is used, a keypair MUST
    be associated with the address before it is deployed, and a ROVR MUST be
    generated from that keypair as specified in <xref target="RFC8928"/>.
    The address and the ROVR MUST then be installed in the 6LBR so it can recognize the address and compare the ROVR on the first subscription.
</t>
<t>
    The keypair MUST then be provisioned in each node that needs to
    subscribe to the anycast or multicast address, so the node can follow the
    steps in <xref target="RFC8928"/> to subscribe the address.
</t>
</section>  <!-- Leveraging RFC 8929 -->

<section anchor="CUO"><name>Consistent Uptime Option </name>
<t>This specification introduces a new option that characterizes the
  uptime of the sender. The option may be used by routers in RA messages and
  by any node in NS, NA, and RS messages. It is used by the receiver to infer
  whether some state synchronization might be lost, e.g., due to reboot.
</t>
 <figure anchor="CUOF"><name>Consistent Uptime Option Format</name>
 <artwork align="center">
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     Type      |     Length    | Exponent  |  Uptime Mantissa  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |S|U|   flags   |          NSSI         |     Peer NSSI         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork>
 </figure><!-- end figure "Consistent Uptime Option Format" -->

<dl>
<dt> Type </dt>
    <dd>To be assigned by IANA, see <xref target="NDOpt"/> </dd>
<dt> Length </dt>
    <dd> 1 </dd>
<dt>S</dt>
    <dd> 1-bit flag, set to 1 to indicate that the sender is low-power and may sleep.</dd>
<dt>U</dt>
    <dd> 1-bit flag, set to 1 to indicate that the Peer NSSI field is valid; it MUST be set
    to 0 when the message is not unicast and MUST be set to 1 when the message is unicast
    and the sender has an NSSI state for the intended receiver.</dd>
<dt>flags</dt>
    <dd> 6-bit, reserved. MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver.</dd>
<dt> NSSI </dt>
    <dd>12-bits unsigned integer: The Node State Sequence Information, MUST be
    stored by the receiver if it has a dependency on information advertised or
    stored at the sender.</dd>
<dt> Peer NSSI </dt>
    <dd>12-bits unsigned integer: Echoes the last known NSSI from the peer.</dd>
<dt> Uptime Exponent </dt>
    <dd>6-bits unsigned integer: The 2-exponent of the uptime unit </dd>
<dt> Uptime Mantissa </dt>
    <dd>10-bits unsigned integer: The mantissa of the uptime value </dd>
</dl>

<t>The Consistent Uptime indicates how long the sender has been continuously up and
   running (though possibly sleeping) without loss of state. 
   It is expressed by the Uptime Mantissa in units
   of 2 at the power of the Uptime Exponent milliseconds. The receiver derives
   the boot time of the sender as the current Epoch minus the sender's Consistent Uptime.
   
</t><t>   
   If the boot time of the sender is updated to a newer time, any state that was
   installed in the sender MUST be reassessed and reinstalled if it is missing but still needed.
   The U flag not set in a unicast message from the sender indicates that it has lost all state from this node.
   If the U flag is set, the the Peer NSSI field can be used to assess which changes the sender missed.
   The other way around, any state that was installed in the receiver
   from information by the sender before it rebooted MUST be removed and may or
   may not be reinstalled later.
</t>
<t>
   The value if the uptime is reset to 0 at some point of the sender's reboot
   sequence, but may not be still 0 when the first message is sent, so the
   receiver must not expect a value of 0 as the signal of a reboot.
</t>
	<table anchor="timex" ><name>Consistent Uptime Rough Values</name>
   <thead>
      <tr><td>Mantissa</td><td>Exponent</td><td>Resolution</td><td>Uptime</td></tr>
   </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1ms</td><td>1ms</td></tr>
      <tr><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>1s</td><td>5 seconds</td></tr>
      <tr><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>30s</td><td>1mn</td></tr>
      <tr><td>2</td><td>21</td><td>33mn</td><td>1 hour</td></tr>
   </tbody>
	</table>	<!-- end table "Consistent Uptime Example Values" +-->

<t>
   The NSSI SHOULD be stored in persistent memory by the
   sender and incremented when it may have missed or lost state about a peer,
   or has updated some state in a fashion that will that impact a peer, e.g.,
   a host formed a new address or a router advertises a new prefix.
   When persisting is not possible, then the NSSI is randomly generated.
</t><t>
   Any change in the value of the NSSI from a node is an indication that the
   node updated some state and that the needful state should be reinstalled, e.g.,
   addresses that where formed based on an RA with a previous NSSI should be
   reassessed, and the registration state updated in the peer.
</t><t>

</t>

</section><!-- Consistent Uptime Option -->

<section anchor="deploy"><name>Deployment considerations</name>
<t>
   With this specification, a RPL DODAG forms a realm, and multiple RPL DODAGs
   may federated in a single RPL Instance administratively. This means that
   a multicast address that needs to span a RPL DODAG MUST use a scope
   of Realm-Local whereas a multicast address that needs to span a RPL Instance
   MUST use a scope of Admin-Local as discussed in section 3 of <xref
   target="RFC7346">"IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes"</xref>.
</t>
<t>
   <xref target="RFC6052">"IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators"</xref>
   enables to embed IPv4 addresses in IPv6 addresses. The Root of a DODAG
   may leverage that technique to translate IPv4 traffic in IPv6 and route
   along the RPL domain. When encapsulating an packet with an IPv4 multicast
   Destination Address, it MUST use a multicast address with the
   appropriate scope, Realm-Local or Admin-Local.
</t>
<t><xref target="RFC3306">"Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast Addresses"</xref>
   enables to form 2^32 multicast addresses from a single /64 prefix.
   If an IPv6 prefix is associated to an Instance or a RPL DODAG, this provides
   a namespace that can be used in any desired fashion. It is for instance
   possible for a standard defining organization to form its own registry
   and allocate 32-bit values from that namespace to network functions or device
   types. When used within a RPL deployment that is associated with a /64 prefix
   the IPv6 multicast addresses can be automatically derived from the prefix and
   the 32-bit value for either a Realm-Local or an Admin-Local multicast
   address as needed in the configuration.
</t>
<t>
   In a "green field"  deployment where all nodes support this
   specification, it is possible to deploy a single RPL Instance using a
   multicast MOP for unicast, multicast and anycast addresses.
</t><t>
   In a "brown field" where legacy devices that do not support
   this specification co-exist with upgraded devices, it is RECOMMENDED to
   deploy one RPL Instance in any Mode of Operation (typically MOP 1) for
   unicast that legacy nodes can join, and a separate RPL Instance dedicated
   to multicast and anycast operations using a multicast MOP.
</t><t>
   To deploy a Storing Mode multicast operation using MOP 3 in a RPL domain,
   it is required that there is enough density of RPL routers that support MOP
   3 to build a DODAG that covers all the potential listeners and include the
   spanning multicast trees that are needed to distribute the multicast flows.
   This might not be the case when extending the capabilities of an existing
   network.
</t><t>
   In the case of the new Non-Storing multicast MOP, arguably the new support is
   only needed at the 6LRs that will accept multicast listeners. It is still
   required that each listener can reach at least one such 6LR, so the upgraded
   6LRs must be deployed to cover all the 6LN that need multicast services.
</t><t>
   Using separate RPL Instances for in the one hand unicast traffic and in the
   other hand anycast and multicast traffic allows to use different objective
   function, one favoring the link quality up for unicast collection and one
   favoring downwards link quality for multicast distribution.
</t><t>
   But this might be impractical in some use cases where the signaling and the
   state to be installed in the devices are very constrained, the upgraded
   devices are too sparse, or the devices do not support more multiple instances.
</t><t>
   When using a single RPL Instance, MOP 3 expects the Storing Mode of Operation for both unicast and multicast, which is an issue in constrained networks that typically use MOP 1 for unicast. This specification allows a mixed mode that is signaled as MOP 1 in the DIO messages for backward compatibility, where limited multicast and/or anycast is available, under the following conditions:
</t>

<ul>
 <li>
   There MUST be enough density of 6LRs that support the mixed mode to
   cover the all the 6LNs that require multicast or anycast services. In Storing Mode, there MUST be enough density or 6LR that support the mixed mode
   to also form a DODAG to the Root.
 </li>  <li>
   The RPL routers that support the mixed mode and are configured to operate in
   in accordance with the desired operation in the network.
 </li> <li>
   The MOP signaled in the RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) messages is MOP 1
   to enable the legacy nodes to operate as leaves.
 </li> <li>
   The support of multicast and/or anycast in the RPL Instance SHOULD be
   signaled by the 6LRs to the 6LN using a 6CIO, see <xref target="CIO"/>.
 </li> <li>
   Alternatively, the support of multicast in the RPL domain can be globally
   known by other means such as configuration or external information such as
   support of a version of an industry standard that mandates it. In that case,
   all the routers MUST support the mixed mode.
 </li>
</ul>

</section>	<!-- end section "Deployment considerations" -->

<section  anchor="sec"><name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>
    This specification Extends <xref target="RFC8505"/>, and
    the security section of that document also applies to this document.
    In particular, the link layer SHOULD be sufficiently
    protected to prevent rogue access.
</t>
<t>
   <xref target="sec8928"/> leverages <xref target="RFC8928"/> to prevent an
   rogue node to register a unicast address that it does not own.
   The mechanism could be extended to anycast and multicast addresses if the
   values of the ROVR they use is known in advance, but how this is done is
   not in scope for this specification.
   One way would be to authorize in a advance the ROVR of the valid users.
   A less preferred way could be to synchronize the ROVR and TID values across
   the valid subscribers as a preshared key material.
</t>
<t>
   In the latter case, it could be possible to update the keys associated to
   an address in all the 6LNs, but the flow is not clearly documented and may
   not complete in due time for all nodes in LLN use cases. It may be simpler
   to install a all-new address with new keys over a period of time, and
   switch the traffic to that address when the migration is complete.
</t>
</section>	<!-- end section "Security Considerations" -->

<section anchor="back"><name>Backward Compatibility</name>
<t>
   A legacy 6LN will not subscribe multicast addresses and the service will be
   the same when the network is upgraded. A legacy 6LR will not set the P-Field
   in the 6CIO and an upgraded 6LN will not subscribe multicast addresses.
</t>
<t>
   Upon an EDAR message, a legacy 6LBR may not realize that the address being
   registered is anycast or multicast, and return that it is duplicate in the
   EDAC status. The 6LR MUST ignore a duplicate status in the EDAR for anycast
   and multicast addresses.
</t>
<t>
   As detailed in <xref target="deploy"/>, it is possible to add multicast on
   an existing MOP 1 deployment.
</t>

<t>
   The combination of a multicast address and the P-Field set to 0 in an RTO in
   a MOP 3 RPL Instance is understood by the receiver that supports this
   specification (the parent) as an indication that the sender (child) does
   not support this specification, but the RTO is accepted and processed as if
   the P-Field was set to 1 for backward compatibility.
</t>

<t>
   When the DODAG is operated in MOP 3, a legacy node will not set the P-Field
   and still expect multicast service as specified in section 12 of <xref
   target="RFC6550"/>.
   In MOP 3 an RTO that is received with a target that is multicast and the P-Field set to 0 MUST be considered as multicast and MUST be processed as if the P-Field is set to 1.
</t>
</section>	<!-- end section "Backward Compatibility" -->

<section ><name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t>
    Note to RFC Editor, to be removed: please replace "This RFC" throughout this
    document by the RFC number for this specification once it is allocated;
    also, requests to IANA must be edited to reflect the IANA actions once
    performed.
</t>
<t>
    Note to IANA, to be removed: the I Field is defined in
    <xref target="RFC9010"/> but is missing from the registry, so the bit
    positions must be added for completeness in conformance with the RFC.
</t>
<t>
    IANA is requested to make changes under the "Internet Control Message
    Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" <xref target="IANA.ICMP"/> and the
    "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" <xref target="IANA.RPL"/>
    registry groupings, as follows:
</t>

    <section anchor="PF"><name>New P-Field values Registry</name>

	<t>
    IANA is requested to create a new "P-Field values" registry under the
    heading "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" to store the
    expression of the Registered Address Type Indicator as a P-Field.
	</t>

 <t> Registration procedure is "Standards Action" <xref target='RFC8126'/>. The initial allocation is as indicated in <xref target="AM2"/>:
 </t>


	 <table anchor="AM2" ><name>P-Field values</name>
     <thead>
      <tr><td>Value</td><td>Registered Address Type Indicator</td><td>Reference</td></tr>
     </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>0</td><td>Registration for a Unicast Address</td> <td>This RFC</td></tr>
      <tr><td>1</td><td>Registration for a Multicast Address</td> <td>This RFC</td></tr>
      <tr><td>2</td><td>Registration for an Anycast Address</td> <td>This RFC</td></tr>
      <tr><td>3</td><td>Unassigned</td><td>This RFC</td></tr>
     </tbody>
    </table>  <!-- end table "P-Field values" -->

    </section><!-- New P-Field Registry -->


    <section><name>New EDAR Message Flags Registry</name>
	<t>
    IANA is requested to create a new "EDAR Message Flags" registry under the
    heading "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters".
	</t>

 <t> Registration procedure is "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval"
    <xref target='RFC8126'/>. The initial allocation is as indicated
    in <xref target="EDARflags"/>:
 </t>
	<table anchor="EDARflags" ><name>EDAR Message flags</name>
   <thead>
      <tr><td>Bit Number</td><td>Meaning</td><td>Reference</td></tr>
   </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>0..1 (suggested)</td><td> P-Field (2 bits), see <xref target="PF"/>
      </td><td>This RFC</td></tr>
      <tr><td>2..7</td><td>Unassigned </td><td></td></tr>
   </tbody>
	</table>	<!-- end table "EDAR Message flags" +-->



    </section>	<!-- end section "New EDAR Message flags Registry -->







 <section><name>New EARO flags</name>
	<t> IANA is requested to make additions to the "Address Registration Option
    Flags" <xref target="IANA.ICMP.ARO.FLG"/> registry under the heading
    "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" as
    indicated in <xref target="AROflags"/>:
	</t>

	<table anchor="AROflags" ><name>New ARO flags</name>
   <thead>
      <tr><td>ARO flag</td><td>Meaning</td><td>Reference</td></tr>
   </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>2..3 (suggested)</td><td> P-Field (2 bits), see <xref target="PF"/></td><td>This RFC</td></tr>
   </tbody>
	</table>	<!-- end table "New  ARO flag" +-->
    </section>	<!-- end section "New ARO flag -->



    <section><name>New RTO flags</name>
	<t> IANA is requested to make additions to the "RPL Target Option Flags" <xref target="IANA.RPL.RTO.FLG"/>  registry under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)"
    as indicated in <xref target="RTOflags"/>:
	</t>

	<table anchor="RTOflags" ><name>New RTO flags</name>
   <thead>
      <tr><td>Bit Number</td><td>Meaning</td><td>Reference</td></tr>
   </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>2..3 (suggested)</td><td> P-Field (2 bits), see <xref target="PF"/></td><td>This RFC</td></tr>
   </tbody>
	</table>	<!-- end table "New  RTO flags" +-->
    </section>	<!-- end section "New RTO flags -->






    <section><name>New RPL Mode of Operation</name>
	<t> IANA is requested to make an addition to the "Mode of Operation" <xref target="IANA.RPL.MOP"/> registry under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)"
    as indicated in <xref target="RMOP"/>:
	</t>

	<table anchor="RMOP" ><name>New RPL Mode of Operation</name>
   <thead>
      <tr><td>Value</td><td>Description</td><td>Reference</td></tr>
   </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>5 (suggested)</td><td>Non-Storing Mode of Operation with ingress
   replication multicast support</td><td>This RFC</td></tr>
   </tbody>
	</table>	<!-- end table "New  RTO flags" +-->
    </section>	<!-- end section "New RTO flags -->




    <section title="New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits">
	<t>
    IANA is requested to make an addition to the
    "6LoWPAN Capability Bits" <xref target="IANA.ICMP.6CIO"/> registry under the
    heading "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters"
    as indicated in <xref target="CIOdat"/>:
	</t>

	<table anchor="CIOdat" ><name>New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits</name>
   <thead>
      <tr><td>Capability Bit</td><td>Meaning</td><td>Reference</td></tr>
   </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>8 (suggested)</td><td>X flag: Registration for Unicast, Multicast, and Anycast Addresses Supported</td><td>This RFC</td></tr>

   </tbody>
	</table>	<!-- end table "New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits" -->
    </section>	<!-- end section "New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits" -->



    <section title="New Address Registration Option Status Values">
	<t>
   IANA has made additions to the "Address Registration Option Status
   Values"  registry under the heading "Internet Control Message
   Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters", as follows:
	</t>

	<table anchor="AROstat" ><name>New Address Registration Option Status Values"</name>
   <thead>
      <tr><td>Value </td><td>Description</td><td>Reference</td></tr>
   </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>11 (suggested)</td><td>Registration Refresh Request</td><td>This RFC</td></tr>
      <tr><td>12 (suggested)</td><td>Invalid Registration</td><td>This RFC</td></tr>

   </tbody>
	</table>	<!-- end table "New Address Registration Option Status Values" -->
    </section>	<!-- end section "New Address Registration Option Status Values" -->



    <section title="New IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option">
	<t>
   IANA has made additions to the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats"
   registry under the heading "Internet Control Message
   Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters", as follows:
	</t>

	<table anchor="NDOpt" ><name>New IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option"</name>
   <thead>
      <tr><td>Value </td><td>Description</td><td>Reference</td></tr>
   </thead><tbody>
      <tr><td>42 (suggested)</td><td>Consistent Uptime Option</td><td>This RFC</td></tr>

   </tbody>
	</table>	<!-- end table "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option" -->
    </section>	<!-- end section "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option" -->

</section>	<!-- end section "IANA Considerations" -->

<section title="Acknowledgments">
<t>
   This work is a production of an effective collaboration between the IETF 6lo
   WG and the Wi-Sun FAN WG. Thanks to all in both WGs who contributed reviews
   and productive suggestions, in particular Carsten Bormann, Paul Duffy,
   Klaus Hueske, Adnan Rashid, Rahul Jadhav, Gene Falendysz, Don Sturek,
   Dario Tedeschi, Saurabh Jain, and Chris Hett.
</t>
<t>
  The Editor wishes to thank ...
  and Esko Dijk for their useful WGLC reviews and proposed changes.
</t>
</section> <!-- title="Acknowledgments" -->

</middle>

<back>

<displayreference   target="IEEE802154"            to="IEEE Std 802.15.4"/>
<displayreference   target="IEEE802151"            to="IEEE Std 802.15.1"/>
<displayreference   target="IEEE80211"             to="IEEE Std 802.11"/>
<displayreference   target="I-D.heile-lpwan-wisun-overview"   to="Wi-SUN"/>

    <references title="Normative References">
	<!-- RFC  -->

	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3306.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml"/>
 	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4861.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4862.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6550.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6775.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7346.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7400.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8200.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8505.xml"/>

    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8928.xml"/>

    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9010.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9030.xml"/>

	   <reference anchor="IANA.ICMP">
		<front>
			<title>IANA Registry for ICMPv6</title>
			<author>
				<organization>
					IANA
				</organization>
			</author>
			<date year=""></date>
		</front>
		<seriesInfo name="IANA," value="https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml"></seriesInfo>
	   </reference>

       <reference anchor="IANA.ICMP.ARO.FLG">
       <front>
			<title>IANA Sub-Registry for the ARO Flags</title>
			<author>
				<organization>
					IANA
				</organization>
			</author>
			<date year=""></date>
		</front>
		<seriesInfo name="IANA," value="https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-adress-registration-option-flags"></seriesInfo>
	   </reference>

       <reference anchor="IANA.ICMP.6CIO">
       <front>
			<title>IANA Sub-Registry for the 6LoWPAN Capability Bits</title>
			<author>
				<organization>
					IANA
				</organization>
			</author>
			<date year=""></date>
		</front>
		<seriesInfo name="IANA," value="https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#sixlowpan-capability-bits"></seriesInfo>
	   </reference>


	   <reference  anchor="IANA.RPL">
       <front>
			<title>IANA Registry for the RPL</title>
			<author>
				<organization>
					IANA
				</organization>
			</author>
			<date year=""></date>
		</front>
		<seriesInfo name="IANA," value="https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml"></seriesInfo>
	   </reference>


	   <reference  anchor="IANA.RPL.RTO.FLG">
       <front>
			<title> IANA Sub-Registry for the RTO Flags</title>
			<author>
				<organization>
					IANA
				</organization>
			</author>
			<date year=""></date>
		</front>
		<seriesInfo name="IANA," value="https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#rpl-target-option-flags"></seriesInfo>
	   </reference>

	   <reference  anchor="IANA.RPL.MOP">
       <front>
			<title> IANA Sub-Registry for the RPL Mode of Operation</title>
			<author>
				<organization>
					IANA
				</organization>
			</author>
			<date year=""></date>
		</front>
		<seriesInfo name="IANA," value="https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop"></seriesInfo>
	   </reference>


    </references>


    <references title="Informative References">
	<!-- RFC  -->

    <!-- I-D -->
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3810.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4919.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6282.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7731.xml"/>
     <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7761.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6052.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8929.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9008.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-rift-rift.xml"/>

      <xi:include href='https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag.xml'/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.heile-lpwan-wisun-overview.xml"/><xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.thubert-bess-secure-evpn-mac-signaling.xml"/>
      <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/>
         </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="IEEE80211"
                 target="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9363693" >
        <front>
          <title>
            IEEE Standard 802.11 - IEEE Standard for Information
            Technology - Telecommunications and information exchange
            between systems Local and metropolitan area networks -
            Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium
            Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
            Specifications.
          </title>
          <author>
               <organization>IEEE standard for Information Technology</organization>
           </author>
          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>


      <reference anchor="IEEE802151">
         <front>
            <title> IEEE Standard for Information Technology -
		Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems -
		Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements. -
		Part 15.1: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
		Layer (PHY) Specifications for Wireless Personal Area Networks
		(WPANs)
            </title>
            <author>
            	<organization> IEEE standard for Information Technology
		</organization>
            </author>
            <date/>
         </front>
      </reference>

    </references>

</back>

</rfc>
