<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [

]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902"
	docName="draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update-10" updates="6775">

<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>

    <front>
      <title>An Update to 6LoWPAN ND</title>
      <author fullname="Pascal Thubert" initials="P" role="editor"
		surname="Thubert">
      <organization abbrev="cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc</organization>
      <address>
	 <postal>
	    <street/><city>Sophia Antipolis</city>
	    <country>FRANCE</country>
	 </postal>
	 <email>pthubert@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
   </author>
   <author initials="E" surname="Nordmark" fullname="Erik Nordmark">
      <organization></organization>
      <address>
	   <postal>
		<street/><city>Santa Clara, CA</city>
		<country>USA</country>
	   </postal>
	   <email>nordmark@sonic.net</email>
      </address>
   </author>
   <author initials="S" surname="Chakrabarti" fullname="Samita Chakrabarti">
     <organization></organization>
      <address>
	  <postal>
	      <street> </street>
	      <city>San Jose, CA</city>
	      <country>USA</country>
	  </postal>
	  <email>samitac.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
   </author>
    <author fullname="Charles E. Perkins" initials="C.E." surname="Perkins">
      <organization>Futurewei</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>2330 Central Expressway</street>
	  <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
	  <city>Santa Clara</city>
	  <region/>
	  <code>95050</code>
	  <country>Unites States</country>
	</postal>
	<phone/>
	<email>charliep@computer.org</email>
	<!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>
    <date/>

    <area>Internet</area>

    <workgroup>6lo</workgroup>

    <abstract>
    <t>
	This specification updates RFC 6775 - 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery,
	to clarify the role of the protocol as a registration technique,
	simplify the registration operation in 6LoWPAN routers, as well as
	to provide enhancements to the registration capabilities and
	mobility detection for different network topologies including the
	backbone routers performing proxy Neighbor Discovery in a low
	power network.
    </t>
    </abstract>
    </front>

<middle>

    <!-- **************************************************************** -->
    <!-- **************************************************************** -->
    <!-- **************************************************************** -->
    <!-- **************************************************************** -->

<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
<t>
    The scope of this draft is an IPv6 Low Power Networks including star and
    mesh topologies.  This specification modifies and extends the behavior
    and protocol elements of <xref target="RFC6775"> "Neighbor Discovery
    Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks"
    (6LoWPAN ND)</xref> to enable additional capabilities and
    enhancements such as:
</t>
<t>
    <list style="symbols">
    <t> Support for indicating mobility vs retry (T-bit) </t>
    <t> Reduce requirement of registration for link-local addresses </t>
    <t> Enhancement to  Address Registration Option (ARO) </t>
    <t> Permitting registration of a target address </t>
    <t> Clarification of support of privacy and temporary addresses </t>
    </list>
</t>
<t>
    The applicability of 6LoWPAN ND registration is discussed in
    <xref target="appli"/>, and new extensions and updates to
    <xref target="RFC6775"/>
    are presented in <xref target="upd6775"/>.
    Considerations on Backward Compatibility, Security and Privacy are
    also elaborated upon in <xref target="back"/>, <xref target="sec"/>
    and in <xref target="priv"/>, respectively.
    <!-- Finally, this document details how the extensions of registration
	 framework can be usful for a  scenario such as Backbone router(6BBR)
	 proxy ND operations.						!-->
</t>
</section>	<!-- end section "Introduction" -->

<section anchor="appli" title="Applicability of Address Registration Options">
<t>
    The purpose of the Address Registration Option (ARO) in the
    legacy 6LoWPAN ND specification is to
    facilitate duplicate address detection (DAD) for hosts as well as populate
    Neighbor Cache Entries (NCE) <xref target="RFC4861"/> in the routers.
    This reduces the reliance on multicast operations, which are
    often as intrusive as broadcast, in IPv6 ND operations.
</t>
<t>
    With this specification, a failed or useless registration can be detected
    for reasons other than address duplication.
    Examples include: the router having run out of space; a registration
    bearing a stale sequence number perhaps denoting a movement of the host
    after the registration was placed;
    a host misbehaving and attempting to register an
    invalid address such as the unspecified address <xref target="RFC4291"/>;
    or a host using an address which is not topologically correct on that link.
</t>
<t>
    In such cases the host will receive an error to help diagnose the issue and
    may retry, possibly with a different address, and possibly registering to a
    different router, depending on the returned error.
    The ability to return errors to address registrations is not
    intended to be used to restrict the ability of hosts to form and use
    addresses, as recommended in
    <xref target="RFC7934">"Host Address Availability Recommendations"</xref>.
</t>
<t>
    In particular, the freedom to form and register addresses is needed for
    enhanced privacy; each host may register a number of addresses using
    mechanisms such as
    <xref target="RFC4941">"Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
    Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) in IPv6"</xref>.
</t>
<t>
    In IPv6 ND <xref target="RFC4861"/>, a router must have enough storage
    to hold neighbor cache entries for all the addresses to which it may
    forward.  A router using the Address Registration mechanism also needs
    enough storage to hold NCEs for all the addresses that may be registered
    to it, regardless of whether or not they are actively
    communicating.  The number of registrations supported by
    a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR) or 6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR) must be clearly
    documented.
</t>
<t>
    A network administrator should deploy updated 6LR/6LBRs to
    support the number and type of devices in his network, based on the
    number of IPv6 addresses that those devices require and their address
    renewal rate and behaviour.
<!-- CEP: "adapted" probably meant "following this specification" -->
</t>
</section> <!-- end section "Applicability of Address Registration Options" -->

<section title="Terminology">
<t>
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
	"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
	and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
	described in <xref target="RFC2119" />.
</t>

<t>
    Readers are expected to be familiar with all the terms and concepts
    that are discussed in
    <list style="symbols">
    <t> <xref target="RFC4861">"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6"
	</xref>, </t>
    <t> <xref target="RFC4862">"IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration"
	</xref>, </t>
    <t> <xref target="RFC4919">"IPv6 over Low-Power
	    Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions,
	    Problem Statement, and Goals"</xref>, </t>
    <t> <xref target="RFC6775">"Neighbor Discovery Optimization
		 for Low-power and Lossy Networks"</xref> and </t>
    <t> <xref target="I-D.ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets">
		 "Multi-link Subnet Support in IPv6"</xref>, </t>
</list>
	
    <!-- Removed reference from routing and 6tisch here to keep it simple -->
    as well as the following terminology:
    <list hangIndent="6" style="hanging">
    <t hangText="Backbone Link:">
	An IPv6 transit link that interconnects two or more Backbone Routers.
	It is expected to be a higher speed device speed compared to the
	LLN in order to carry the traffic that is required to federate multiple
	segments of the potentially large LLN into a single IPv6 subnet.
<!-- CEP: These last three could have multiple links.  Do you really want to	
		 		make a link to be the same as a network?
	Also referred to as a to as a Backbone, a LLN Backbone, and a
	Backbone Network.		-->
    </t>
    <t hangText="Backbone Router:">
	A logical network function in an IPv6 router that federates a LLN
	over a Backbone Link.
	In order to do so, the Backbone Router (6BBR) proxies the 6LoWPAN ND
	operations detailed in the document onto the matching operations that
	run over the backbone, typically IPv6 ND.
	Note that 6BBR is a logical function, just like 6LR and 6LBR, and that a
	same physical router may operate all three.
    </t>
    <t hangText="Extended LLN:">
	The aggregation of multiple LLNs as defined in
	<xref target="RFC4919"></xref>, interconnected
	by a Backbone Link via Backbone Routers, and forming a single IPv6
	MultiLink Subnet.
    </t>
    <t hangText="Registration:">
	The process during which a 6LN registers its address(es) with
	the Border Router so the 6BBR can serve as proxy for ND operations
	over the Backbone.
    </t>
    <t hangText="Binding:">
	The association between an IP address with a	
	MAC address, a port and/or other information about the node	
	that owns the IP address.
    </t>
    <t hangText="Registered Node:">
	The node for which the registration is performed,
	and which owns the fields in the EARO option.
    </t>
    <t hangText="Registering Node:">
	The node that performs the registration to the 6BBR, which may proxy
	for the registered node.
    </t>
    <t hangText="Registered Address:">
	An address owned by the Registered Node node that was or is
	being registered.
    </t>
    <t hangText="IPv6 ND:">
<!-- 
	In the context of this specification, the term "classical"
	relates to the support of			-->
        The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery protocol as specified in
	<xref target="RFC4861"/> and <xref target="RFC4862"/>.
    </t>
    <t hangText="legacy:">
	a 6LN, a 6LR or a 6LBR that supports
	<xref target="RFC6775"/> but not this specification.
    </t>
    <t hangText="updated:">
	a 6LN, a 6LR or a 6LBR that supports this specification.
    </t>
    </list>
</t>
</section>	<!-- end section "Terminology" -->

<section anchor="upd6775" title="Updating RFC 6775">
    <t>
	This specification introduces the Extended Address Registration Option
	(EARO) based on the ARO as defined in
	<xref target="RFC6775"/>; in particular a "T" flag is
	added that MUST be set in NS messages when this specification is used,
	and echoed in NA messages to confirm that the protocol is supported.
    </t>
    <t>
	The extensions to the ARO option are used in the Duplicate Address
	Request (DAR) and Duplicate Address Confirmation (DAC) messages, so as
	to convey the additional information all the way to the 6LBR.  In
	turn the 6LBR may proxy the registration using IPv6 ND over a
	backbone as illustrated in <xref target="figReg"/>. Note that
    this specification avoids the extended DAR flow for Link Local
    Addresses in Route-Over mode.
    </t>
    <figure anchor="figReg" suppress-title="false"
	title="(Re-)Registration Flow">
    <artwork><![CDATA[
     6LN              6LR             6LBR            6BBR
      |                |               |                |
      |   NS(EARO)     |               |                |
      |--------------->|               |                |
      |                | Extended DAR  |                |
      |                |-------------->|                |
      |                |               |                |
      |                |               | proxy NS(EARO) |
      |                |               |--------------->|
      |                |               |                | NS(DAD)
      |                |               |                | ------>
      |                |               |                | <wait>
      |                |               |                |
      |                |               | proxy NA(EARO) |
      |                |               |<---------------|
      |                | Extended DAC  |                |
      |                |<--------------|                |
      |   NA(EARO)     |               |                |
      |<---------------|               |                |
      |                |               |                |
    ]]></artwork>
    </figure>
    <t>
	In order to support various types of link layers, it is RECOMMENDED to
	allow multiple registrations, including for privacy / temporary
	addresses, and provides new mechanisms to help clean up stale
	registration states as soon as possible.
    </t>
    <t>
	A Registering Node SHOULD prefer
	registering to a 6LR that is found to support this specification, as
	discussed in <xref target="dsc"/>, over a legacy one.
    </t>

    <section title="Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)">
    <t>
	The Extended ARO (EARO) deprecates the ARO and is backward compatible
	with it. More details on backward compatibility can be found in
	<xref target="back"/>.
    </t>
    <t>
	The semantics of the ARO are modified as follows:
	<list style="symbols">
	<t>
	    The address that is being registered with a Neighbor Solicitation
	    (NS) with an EARO is now the Target Address, as opposed to the
	    Source Address as specified in
	    <xref target="RFC6775"/> (see <xref target='rta'/>).
	    This change enables a 6LBR to use one of its addresses as
	    source to the proxy-registration of an address that belongs to a
	    LLN Node to a 6BBR.  This also limits the use of an address as
	    source address before it is registered and the associated DAD
	    process is complete.
	</t>
	<t>
	    The Unique ID in the EARO Option is not required to be a MAC
	    address
	    <!-- A new TLV format is introduced and a IANA registry is created
		 for the type (TBD) -->
	    (see <xref target='ouid'/>).
<!-- CEP: Citation needed for PT-UID [a term that only occurs here].	
	    This enables in particular the use of a Provable Temporary UID
	    (PT-UID) as opposed to a preconfigured
	    MAC address; the PT-UID provides an anchor trusted by the 6LR and
	    6LBR to protect the state associated to the node.  -->
<!-- CEP: What if the Target address is "good enough" to be the Unique ID?	
		 		Can the Unique ID be elided in that case?  -->
	</t>
	<t>
	    The specification introduces a Transaction ID (TID) field in the
	    EARO (see <xref target='tid'/>).
	    The TID MUST be provided by a node that supports this specification
	    and a new "T" flag MUST be set to indicate so.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Finally, this specification introduces new status
	    codes to help diagnose the cause of a registration failure
	    (see <xref target="AROstatus"/>).
	</t>
	</list>
    </t>
    </section><!-- end section "Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)"-->

    <section anchor='tid' title="Transaction ID">
    <t>
	The Transaction ID (TID) is a sequence number that is incremented
	with each re-registration.
	The TID is used to detect the freshness of the registration request and
	useful to detect one single registration by multiple 6LOWPAN border
	routers (e.g., 6LBRs and 6BBRs) supporting the same 6LOWPAN.
	The TID may also be used by the network to track the sequence of
	movements of a node in order to route to the current (freshest known)
	location of a moving node.
    </t>
    <t>
	When a Registered Node is registered with multiple BBRs
	in parallel, the same TID SHOULD be used, to enable the
	6BBRs to determine that the registrations are the same, and
	distinguish that situation from a movement.
    </t>

    <section title="Comparing TID values">
	<t>
	    The TID is a sequence counter and its operation is
	    the exact match of the path sequence specified in RPL,
	    the <xref target="RFC6550">IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
	    Lossy Networks</xref> specification.
	</t>
	<t>
	    In order to keep this document self-contained and yet compatible,
	    the text below is an exact copy from section 7.2.
	    "Sequence Counter Operation" of <xref target="RFC6550"/>.
	</t>
	<t>
	    A TID is deemed to be fresher than another when its value is greater
	    per the operations detailed in this section.
	</t>
	<t> The TID range is subdivided in a 'lollipop' fashion
	    (<xref target="Perlman83"></xref>), where the values from 128
	    and greater are used as a linear sequence to indicate a restart
	    and bootstrap the counter, and the values less than or equal to
	    127 used as a circular sequence number space of size 128 as in
	    <xref target="RFC1982"></xref>. Consideration is given to the
	    mode of operation when transitioning from the linear region to
	    the circular region. Finally, when operating in the circular
	    region, if sequence numbers are detected to be too far apart
	    then they are not comparable, as detailed below.
	</t>
	<t> A window of comparison, SEQUENCE_WINDOW = 16, is configured based
	    on a value of 2^N, where N is defined to be 4 in this
	    specification.
	</t>
	<t> For a given sequence counter,
	    <list style="numbers">
	    <t> The sequence counter SHOULD be initialized to an implementation
		defined value which is 128 or greater prior to use.
		A recommended value is 240 (256 - SEQUENCE_WINDOW).</t>

	    <t> When a sequence counter increment would cause the sequence
		counter to increment beyond its maximum value, the sequence
		counter MUST wrap back to zero. When incrementing a sequence
		counter greater than or equal to 128, the maximum value is 255.
		When incrementing a sequence counter less than 128, the maximum
		value is 127.</t>

	    <t> When comparing two sequence counters, the following rules MUST
		be applied: <list style="numbers">
		    <t>When a first sequence counter A is in the interval
		    [128..255] and a second sequence counter B is in [0..127]:
		    <list style="numbers">
			<t> If (256 + B - A) is less than or equal to
			    SEQUENCE_WINDOW, then B is greater than A, A is
			    less than B, and the two are not equal.</t>
			<t> If (256 + B - A) is greater than SEQUENCE_WINDOW,
			    then A is greater than B, B is less than A, and
			    the two are not equal.</t>
		      </list>
		For example, if A is 240, and B is 5,
		then (256 + 5 - 240) is 21.
		21 is greater than SEQUENCE_WINDOW (16), thus
		240 is greater than 5. As another example, if A is 250 and B
		is 5, then (256 + 5 - 250) is 11. 11 is less than
		SEQUENCE_WINDOW (16), thus 250 is less than 5.
	    </t>
	    <t> In the case where both sequence counters to be compared are
		less than or equal to 127, and in the case where both sequence
		counters to be compared are greater than or equal to 128:
		<list style="numbers">
		<t> If the absolute magnitude of difference between the two
		    sequence counters is less than or equal to SEQUENCE_WINDOW,
		    then a comparison as described in
		    <xref target="RFC1982"></xref> is used to determine the
		    relationships greater than, less than, and equal. </t>
		<t> If the absolute magnitude of difference of the two
		    sequence counters is greater than SEQUENCE_WINDOW, then a
		    desynchronization has occurred and the two sequence
		    numbers are not comparable.</t>
		</list></t>
	    </list></t>
	    <t>
		If two sequence numbers are determined to be not comparable,
		i.e. the results of the comparison are not defined, then a node
		should consider the comparison as if it has evaluated in such a
		way so as to give precedence to the sequence number that has
		most recently been observed to increment. Failing this, the
		node should consider the comparison as if it has evaluated in
		such a way so as to minimize the resulting changes to its own
		state.</t>
	    </list></t>
	</section>	<!-- end section "Comparing TID values" -->
    </section>	<!-- end section "Transaction ID" -->

    <section anchor='ouid' title="Owner Unique ID">
    <t>
	The Owner Unique ID (OUID) enables a duplicate address registration to
	be distinguished from a double registration or a movement.  An ND
	message from the 6BBR over the Backbone that is proxied on behalf of
	a Registered Node must carry the most recent EARO option seen for
	that node.  A NS/NA with an EARO and a NS/NA without a EARO thus
	represent different nodes; if they relate to a same target then
	an address duplication is likely.
    </t>
    <t>
	The Owner Unique ID in <xref target="RFC6775"/>
	is a EUI-64 preconfigured address,
	under the assumption that duplicate EUI-64 addresses are avoided.
	With this specification, the Owner Unique ID is allowed to be extended
	to different types of identifier, as long as the type is clearly
	indicated. For instance, the type can be a cryptographic string and
	used to prove the ownership of the registration as discussed in
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd">
	"Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks"
	</xref>.
    </t>
    <t>
	The node SHOULD store the unique ID,
	or a way to generate that ID, in persistent memory.
	Otherwise, if a reboot causes a loss of memory, re-registering the
	same address could be impossible until the 6LBR times out the
	previous registration.
    </t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Owner Unique ID" -->

    <section title="Extended Duplicate Address Messages">
    <t>
	In order to map the new EARO content in the DAR/DAC messages, a new TID
	field is added to the Extended DAR (EDAR) and the Extended DAC (EDAC)
	messages as a replacement to a Reserved field, and an odd value of the
	ICMP Code indicates support for the TID, to transport the "T" flag.
    </t>
<!--	CEP: Either the implementation implements this specification, or not.	
	The next paragraph should be deleted.  If processing	
	ND options crashes an implementation, that means this specification	
	is not backwards compatible to those implementations.  It would more	
	correct to say that backwards compatibility is only applicable to	
	existing implementations that do ignore ND options.  (**)7
         -->
    <t>
	In order to prepare for future extensions, and though no option has been
	defined for the Duplicate Address messages, implementations SHOULD expect 
    ND options after the main body, and SHOULD ignore them.
  </t>
    <t>
	As for the EARO, the Extended Duplicate Address messages are backward
	compatible with the legacy versions, and remarks concerning backwards
	compatibility for the protocol between the 6LN and the 6LR apply
	similarly between a 6LR and a 6LBR.
    </t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Extended Duplicate Address Messages" -->

    <section anchor='rta' title="Registering the Target Address">
    <t>
	The Registering Node is the node that performs the registration to the
	6BBR. As in <xref target="RFC6775"/>, it may
	be the Registered Node as well,
	in which case it registers one of its own addresses, and indicates its
	own MAC Address as Source Link Layer Address (SLLA) in the NS(EARO).
    </t>
    <t>
	This specification adds the capability to proxy the registration
	operation on behalf of a Registered Node that is reachable over a LLN
	mesh.  In that case, if the Registered Node is reachable from the 6BBR
	over a Mesh-Under mesh, the Registering Node indicates the MAC Address
	of the Registered Node as SLLA in the NS(EARO).
	If the Registered Node is reachable over a Route-Over mesh from the
	Registering Node, the SLLA in the NS(ARO) is that of the Registering
	Node. This enables the Registering Node
	to attract the packets from the 6BBR and route them over the LLN to the
	Registered Node.
    </t>
    <t>
	In order to enable the latter operation, this specification changes the
	behavior of the 6LN and the 6LR so that the Registered Address is
	found in the Target Address field of the NS and NA messages as
	opposed	to the Source Address.
<!--   	CEP: The text in the next paragraph is repetitious and superfluous.
    </t>
    <t>
	The reason for this change is to enable proxy-registrations on behalf
	of other nodes, for instance to enable a
	RPL root to register addresses on behalf of other LLN nodes, as
	discussed in <xref target="Req4"/>.  In that case, the
	Registering Node MUST indicate its own address as source of the ND
	message and its MAC address in the Source Link-Layer Address Option
	(SLLAO), since it still expects to receive and route the packets.
	Since the Registered Address belongs to
	the Registered Node, that address is indicated in the Target
	Address field of the NS message.
    </t>
    <t>
  -->
	With this convention, a TLLA option indicates the link-layer address
	of the 6LN that owns the address, whereas the SLLA Option in a NS
	message indicates that of the Registering Node, which can be the owner
	device, or a proxy.
    </t>
    <t>
	The Registering Node is reachable from the
	6LR, and is also the one expecting packets for the 6LN.
	Therefore, it MUST place its own Link Layer Address in the SLLA Option
	that MUST always be placed in a registration NS(EARO) message.
	This maintains compatibility with
	<xref target="RFC6775"> legacy 6LoWPAN ND </xref>.
<!--  CEP: Check: what if the two messages come from different interfaces? -->
    </t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Registering the Target Address" -->

    <section anchor="llar" title="Link-Local Addresses and Registration">
    <t>
	Considering that LLN nodes are often not wired and may move, there is no
	guarantee that a Link-Local address stays unique between a potentially
	variable and unbounded set of neighboring nodes.
    </t>
    <t>
	Compared to <xref target="RFC6775"/>,
	this specification only requires that a Link-Local address is unique
	from the perspective of the two nodes that use it to communicate
	(e.g. the 6LN and the 6LR in an NS/NA exchange).
	This simplifies the DAD process in Route-Over Mode
	for Link-Local addresses, and there is no exchange of Duplicate Address
	messages between the 6LR and a 6LBR for Link-Local addresses.
    </t>
<!--  CEP: The next two paragraphs duplicate other text.
    <t>
	According to <xref target="RFC6775"/>, a 6LoWPAN Node
	(6LN) uses the an address being registered as the source of the
	registration message.  This generates complexities in the 6LR to be
	able to cope with a potential
	duplication, in particular for global addresses.
    </t>
    <t>
	To simplify this,
	a 6LN and a 6LR that conform this specification MUST always use
	Link-Local addresses as source and destination addresses for
	the registration NS/NA exchange. As a result, the registration
	is globally faster, and some of the complexity is removed.
    </t>
-->
    <t>
	In more details:
    </t>
    <!--t>
	A link is abstracted as a one-hop point-to-point communication medium.
	There is no need nor expectation that a Link-Local address is unique
	across the whole LLN. A 6LR assumes that the Link-Local address of a
	Registering Node is unique as long as the 6LR does not have a
	conflicting registration for that address.
    </t-->
    <t>
	An exchange between two nodes using Link-Local addresses implies that
	they are reachable over one hop and that at least one of the 2 nodes
	acts as a 6LR. A node MUST register a Link-Local address to a 6LR in
	order to obtain reachability from that 6LR beyond the current exchange,
	and in
	particular to use the Link-Local address as source address to register
	other addresses, e.g. global addresses.
    </t>
    <t>
	If there is no collision with an address previously registered to this
	6LR by another 6LN, then the Link-Local address is unique from the
	standpoint of this 6LR and the registration is acceptable.
	Alternatively, two different 6LRs might expose the same Link-Local
	address but different
	link-layer addresses. In that case, a 6LN MUST only interact with one
	of the 6LRs.
    </t>
    <t>
	The DAD process between the 6LR and a 6LBR, which is based on an
	exchange of Duplicate Address messages, does not need to take place
	for Link-Local addresses.
    </t>
    <t>
	It is preferable for a 6LR to avoid modifying its state associated
	to the Source Address of an NS(EARO) message. For that reason, when
	possible, an address that is already
	registered with a 6LR SHOULD be used by a 6LN.
    </t>
    <t>
	When registering to a 6LR that conforms this specification, a node
	MUST use a Link-Local address as the source address of the registration,
	whatever the type of IPv6 address that is being registered.
	That Link-Local Address MUST be either already registered, or the
	address that is being registered.
    </t>
    <t>
	When a Registering Node does not have an already-Registered Address,
	it MUST register a Link-Local address, using it as both the Source and
	the Target Address of an NS(EARO) message. In that case, it is
	RECOMMENDED to use a Link-Local address that is (expected to be)
	globally unique, e.g., derived from a globally unique hardware 
    MAC address.
	An EARO option in the response NA indicates that the 6LR supports this
	specification. 	
    </t>
    <t>
	Since there is no Duplicate Address exchange for Link-Local addresses,
	the 6LR may answer immediately to the registration of a Link-Local
	address, based solely on its existing state and the Source Link-Layer
	Option that MUST be placed in the NS(EARO) message as required in
	<xref target="RFC6775"/>.
    </t>
    <t>
	A node needs to register its IPv6 Global Unicast IPv6 Addresses (GUAs)
	to a 6LR in order to establish global reachability for these addresses
	via that 6LR.  When registering with an updated 6LR, a Registering Node
	does not use its GUA as Source Address, in contrast to a node that
	complies to <xref target="RFC6775"/>.  For non-Link-Local addresses,
	the Duplicate Address
	exchange MUST conform to <xref target="RFC6775"/>, but
	the extended formats described in this specification
	for the DAR and the DAC are used to relay the extended information in
	the case of an EARO.
    </t>
    <!-- section on backward needed
	A 6LR SHOULD be configurable to accept that case for backward
	compatibility reasons. Since the registration of a Global Unicast IPv6
	Address generally requires a Duplicate Address exchange with a 6LBR, a
	6LR that accepts that case needs to keep a limited amount of transient
	state information per new registration of GUA. >
    </t>
    <t>
	What makes this model practical in existing LLNs, which can grow to
	large number of nodes, is that a subnet may encompass multiple links,
	which can be LLN links or can be Backbone links that federate a number
	of LLN links, effectively forming a non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA)
	multi-link subnet (MLSN).
    </t-->
    </section>	<!-- end section "Link-Local Addresses and Registration" -->

    <section anchor='sta' title="Maintaining the Registration States">
    <t>
	This section discusses protocol actions that involve the Registering
	Node, the 6LR and the 6LBR. It must be noted that the portion that
	deals with a 6LBR only applies to those addresses that are registered
	to it; as discussed in <xref target='llar'/>, this is not the case
	for Link-Local addresses.  The registration state includes all data
	that is stored in the router relative to that registration,
	in particular, but not limited to, an NCE
	in a 6LR. 6LBRs and 6BBRs may store additional registration information
	in more complex data structures and use protocols that are out of scope
	of this document to keep them synchonized when they are distributed.
    </t>
    <t>
	When its Neighbor Cache is full, a 6LR cannot accept a new registration.
	In that situation, the EARO is returned in a NA message with a Status
	of 2, and the Registering Node may attempt to register to another 6LR.
    </t>
    <t>
	If the registry in the 6LBR is be saturated, in which case the
	LBR cannot guarantee that a new address is effectively not a duplicate.
	In that case, the 6LBR replies to a EDAR message with a EDAC message
	that carries a Status code 9 indicating "6LBR Registry saturated", and
	the address stays in TENTATIVE state. Note: this code is used by 6LBRs
	instead of
	Status 2 when responding to a Duplicate Address message exchange and
	passed on to the Registering Node by the 6LR.  There is no point for
	the node to retry this registration immediately via another 6LR,
	since the problem is global to the network.  The node may either
	abandon that address, deregister other addresses first to make room,
	or keep the address in TENTATIVE state and retry later.
    </t>
    <t>
	A node renews an existing registration by sending a new NS(EARO)
	message for the Registered Address. In order to refresh the
	registration
	state in the 6LBR, the registration MUST be reported to the 6LBR.
	<!-- Remove, does not belong here:   
	This is normally done through a Duplicate Address exchange, but the
	refresh MAY alternatively be piggy-backed in another protocol such as
	RPL <xref target="RFC6550"/>, as long as the semantics of the EARO are
	fully carried in the alternate protocol.
	In the particular case of RPL, the TID MUST be used as the Path
	Sequence in the TIO, and the Registration Lifetime MUST be used
	as Path Lifetime. It is also REQUIRED that the root of the RPL DODAG
	passes that information to the 6LBR on behalf of the 6LR, either through
	a Duplicate Address exchange, or through internal methods if they are
	collocated.							-->
    </t>
    <t>
	A node that ceases to use an address SHOULD attempt to deregister that
	address from all the 6LRs to which it has registered the address, which
	is achieved using an NS(EARO) message with a Registration Lifetime of 0.
    </t>
    <t>
	A node that moves away from a particular 6LR SHOULD attempt to
	deregister all of its addresses registered to that 6LR and register to
	a new 6LR with an incremented TID. When/if the node shows up elsewhere,
<!--  CEP: Need to check this. -->
	an asynchronous NA(EARO) or EDAC message with a status of 3 "Moved"
	SHOULD be used to clean up the state in the previous location.
	For instance, the "Moved" status can be used by a 6BBR in a NA(EARO)
	message to indicate that the ownership of the proxy state on the
	Backbone was transferred to another 6BBR, as the consequence of a
	movement of the device. The receiver of the message SHOULD propagate
	the status down the
	chain towards the Registered node and clean up its state.
    </t>
    <t>
	Upon receiving a NS(EARO) message with a Registration Lifetime of 0 and
	determining that this EARO is the freshest for a given NCE
	(see <xref target='tid'/>), a 6LR cleans up its NCE.  If the address
	was registered to the 6LBR, then the 6LR MUST report to the 6LBR,
	through a Duplicate Address exchange with the 6LBR, or an alternate
	protocol, indicating the null Registration Lifetime and the latest TID
	that this 6LR is aware of.
    </t>
    <t>
	Upon receiving the Extended DAR message, the 6LBR evaluates if this is
	the most recent TID it has received for that particular registry entry.
	If so, then the entry is scheduled to be removed, and the EDAR is
	answered with a EDAC message bearing a Status of 0 ("Success").
	Otherwise, a Status
	3 ("Moved") is returned instead, and the existing entry is maintained.
    </t>
    <t>
	When an address is scheduled to be removed,
	the 6LBR SHOULD keep its entry in a DELAY state for a configurable
	period of time, so as to protect a mobile node that deregistered from
	one 6LR and did not register yet to a new one, or the new registration
	did not reach yet the 6LBR due to propagation delays in the network.
	Once the DELAY time is passed, the 6LBR removes silently its entry.
	
    </t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Maintaining the Registration States" -->
</section>	<!-- end section "Updating RFC 6775" -->

<section title="Detecting Enhanced ARO Capability Support">
<t>
	The <xref target="RFC7400">"Generic Header Compression for IPv6
	over 6LoWPANs"</xref> introduces the 6LoWPAN Capability
	Indication Option (6CIO) to indicate a node's capabilities to its peers.
	This specification extends the format defined in
	<xref target="RFC7400"/> to signal
	support for EARO, as well as the node's capability to act as a 6LR,
	6LBR and 6BBR.
</t>
<!--t>
	Before a node can use the EARO feature for address
	registration, it has to find a router which supports it.  For this
	purpose, all implementations using the EARO option MUST also
	provide the capability detection method using 6CIO option to support
	both types of registrations (ARO and EARO).
	Any new implementation of 6LOWPAN ND SHOULD support the 6CIO.
</t-->
<t>
	The 6CIO is typically sent in a Router
	Solicitation (RS) message.  When used to signal capabilities
	per this specification, the 6CIO is typically present in Router
	Advertisement (RA) messages but can also be present in RS, Neighbor
	Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages.
</t>
</section>	<!-- end section "Detecting Enhanced ARO Capability Support" -->

<section anchor='option' title="Extended ND Options And Messages">
    <t>
	This specification does not introduce new options, but it modifies
	existing ones and updates the associated behaviors as specified in
	the following subsections.
    </t>

    <section anchor='earo' title="Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO)">
    <t>
	The Address Registration Option (ARO) is defined in section 4.1. of
	<xref target="RFC6775"/>.
    </t>
    <t>
	The Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO) updates
	the ARO option within Neighbor Discovery NS and NA messages between a
	6LN and its 6LR.  On the other hand, the Extended Duplicate Address
	messages, EDAR and EDAC, replace the DAR and DAC messages so as to
	transport the new information between 6LRs and 6LBRs across LLNs meshes
	such as 6TiSCH networks.
    </t>
    <t>
	An NS message with an EARO option is a registration if and only if it
	also carries an SLLAO option.  The EARO option also used in NS and NA
	messages between Backbone Routers over the Backbone link to sort out
	the distributed registration state; in that case, it does not
	carry the SLLAO option and is not confused with a registration.
<!-- CEP: xref needed...  find and insert.. -->
    </t>
    <t>
	When using the EARO option, the address being registered is found in
	the Target Address field of the NS and NA messages.
<!--    CEP: Already said this several times.		    This differs from
	6LoWPAN ND <xref target="RFC6775"/> which specifies that
	the address being registered is the source of the NS.  -->
    </t>
    <t>
	The EARO extends the ARO and is indicated by the "T" flag set.
	The format of the EARO option is as follows:
    </t>
    <figure anchor='EARO' title="EARO">
    <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 = 2  |    Status     |   Reserved    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   Reserved  |T|     TID       |     Registration Lifetime     |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  +         Owner Unique ID   (EUI-64 or equivalent)              +
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ]]></artwork>
    </figure>

    <!--
	TID: 1-byte integer; a transaction id that is maintained by the device
	and incremented with each transaction.  It is recommended that the
	device maintains the TID in a persistent storage.
	
	"T" flag: Set if the next octet is a TID.
	N flag: Set if the device moved. If not set, the router will refrain
		from sending NA(O) after DAD in mixed mode.
	The TID is really a sequence counter, and it is managed as described
	in section 7.2. Sequence Counter Operation of <xref target="RFC6550"/>
    -->

    <t>
	Option Fields
	<list hangIndent="16"  style='hanging'>
	<t hangText="Type:">33 </t>
	<t hangText="Length:">8-bit unsigned integer.  The length of the
		option in units of 8 bytes.  Always 2.  </t>
	<t hangText="Status:"> 8-bit unsigned integer.  Indicates the status of
		a registration in the NA response.  MUST be set to 0 in NS
		messages. See <xref target="AROstatus"/> below.</t>
	</list>
    </t>
    <texttable anchor="AROstatus" title="EARO Status" >
	  	<ttcol align="center">Value</ttcol>
	  	<ttcol align="left">Description </ttcol>
	<c> 0..2 </c>
	    <c> See <xref target="RFC6775"/>.
		Note: a Status of 1 "Duplicate Address" applies to the
		Registered Address. If the Source Address conflicts with an
		existing registration, "Duplicate Source Address" should be
		used.  </c>
	<c></c><c></c>
	<c> 3 </c>
	    <c>	Moved: The registration fails because it is not the freshest.
		This Status indicates that the registration is rejected because
		another more recent registration was done, as indicated by a
		same OUI and a more recent TID. One possible cause is a stale
		registration that has progressed slowly in the network and was
		passed by a more recent one.  It could also indicate a OUI
		collision.</c>
	<c></c><c></c>
	<c> 4 </c>
	    <c>	Removed: The binding state was removed. This may be placed in
		an asynchronous NS(ARO) message, or as the rejection of a
		proxy registration to a Backbone Router </c>
	<c></c><c></c>
	<c> 5 </c>
	    <c>	Validation Requested: The Registering Node is challenged for
		owning the Registered Address or for being an acceptable proxy
		for the registration.  This Status is expected in asynchronous
		messages from a registrar (6LR, 6LBR, 6BBR) to indicate that
		the registration state is removed, for instance due to a
		movement of the device.  </c>
	<c></c><c></c>
	<c> 6 </c>
	    <c>	Duplicate Source Address: The address used as source of the
		NS(ARO) conflicts with an existing registration. </c>
	<c></c><c></c>
	<c> 7 </c>
	    <c>	Invalid Source Address: The address used as source of the
		NS(ARO) is not a Link-Local address as prescribed by this
		document.</c>
	<!--c> 7 </c>
	    <c>	Administrative Rejection: The address being registered is
		reserved for another use by an administrative decision (e.g.
		placed in a DHCPv6 pool); The Registering Node is requested to 
		form a different address and retry  </c-->
	<c></c><c></c>
	<c> 8 </c>
	    <c>	Registered Address topologically incorrect: The address being
		registered is not usable on this link, e.g. it is not
		topologically correct </c>
	<c></c><c></c>
	<c> 9 </c>
	    <c>	6LBR Registry saturated: A new registration cannot be accepted
		because the 6LBR Registry is saturated.  Note: this code is
		used by 6LBRs instead of Status 2 when responding to a
		Duplicate Address message exchange and passed on to the
		Registering Node by the 6LR.  </c>
	<c></c><c></c>
	<c> 10 </c>
	    <c>	Validation Failed: The proof of ownership of the registered
		address is not correct. </c>
    </texttable> <!-- end table "EARO Status" -->

    <t> <list hangIndent="16"  style='hanging'>
	<t hangText="Reserved:">
		This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero by
		the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.  </t>
	<!--
	<t hangText="P:">
		One bit flag. Indicates that the registration is for a prefix,
		for prefix level DAD operation.  </t>
	<t hangText="PfxBL:">
		3 bits integer. Indicates a bit length to be deduced from 64 to
		obtain the prefix length that is registered.  If P is set, then
		this eARO registers a prefix length of 64-PfxBL that is 2^PfxBL
		/64 prefixes, with is a maximum of 128 prefixes.
		The registration will be rejected if this group of prefixes
		intersects with an existing registration from another OUI. </t>
	<t hangText="N:">
		One bit flag. Set if the device moved. If not set, the router
		will refrain from sending gratuitous NA(O) over the Backbone,
		for instance after the DAD operation upon entry creation. </t>
	<t hangText="S:">
		One bit flag. Set if the registration is secondary. </t>
	<t hangText="P:">
		One bit flag. Set to indicate a proxy Registration.  When not
		set, the Registering Node owns the Registered Address.  When
		set, the Registering Node is different from the Registered Node.
		</t>
	-->
	<t hangText="T:">
		One bit flag. Set if the next octet is a used as a TID. </t>
	<t hangText="TID:">
		1-byte integer; a transaction id that is maintained by the node
		and incremented with each transaction.  The node SHOULD
		maintain the TID in a persistent storage. </t>
	<t hangText="Registration Lifetime:">
		16-bit integer; expressed in minutes.  0 means that the
		registration has ended and the associated state should
		be removed.
	<!--
	     	A value of all 1's (0xFFFF) also denotes a deregistration, but
		indicates additionally that the node intends to keep the
		address alive via other 6LRs, so the 6LR should refrain from
		notifying the 6LBR. -->
		</t>
	<t hangText="Owner Unique Identifier (OUI):">
		A globally unique identifier for the node associated. This can
		be the EUI-64 derived IID of an interface, or some provable ID
		obtained cryptographically. </t>
	</list> </t>
    </section><!-- end section "Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO)"-->

    <section anchor='DAM' title="Extended Duplicate Address Message Formats">
    <t>
	The Duplicate Address Request (DAR) and the Duplicate Address
	Confirmation (DAC) messages are defined in section 4.4 of
	<xref target="RFC6775"/>.  Those messages follow a common base format, 
	which enables information from
	the ARO to be transported over multiple hops.
    </t>
    <t>
	The Duplicate Address Messages are extended to adapt to
	the Extended ARO format, as follows:
    </t>
    <figure anchor='edam' title="Duplicate Address Messages Format">
    <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      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Status     |     TID       |     Registration Lifetime     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +          Owner Unique ID   (EUI-64 or equivalent)             +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                       Registered Address                      +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ]]></artwork>
    </figure>
    <!--
	TID: 1-byte integer; a transaction id that is maintained by the device
	and incremented with each transaction.  It is recommended that the
	device maintains the TID in a persistent storage.
	"T" flag: Set if the next octet is a TID.
	N flag: Set if the device moved. If not set, the router will refrain
		from sending NA(O) after DAD in mixed mode.
	The TID is really a sequence counter, and it is managed as described
	in section 7.2. Sequence Counter Operation of <xref target="RFC6550"/>
    -->

    <t> Modified Message Fields
	<list hangIndent="16"  style='hanging'>
	<t hangText="Code:">
		The ICMP Code as defined in <xref target="RFC4443"/>.  The ICMP
		Code MUST be set to 1 with this specification. An odd value of
		the ICMP Code indicates that the TID field is present and obeys
		this specification. </t>
	<t hangText="TID:">
		1-byte integer; same definition and processing as the TID in
		the EARO option as defined in <xref target="earo"/>.  </t>
	<t hangText="Owner Unique Identifier (OUI):">
		8 bytes; same definition and processing as the OUI in the EARO
		option as defined in <xref target="earo"/>.  </t>
	</list> </t>
    </section><!-- end section "Extended Duplicate Address Message Formats" --> 

    <section anchor='CIO'
       title="New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits in the Capability Indication Option">
    <t>
	This specification defines new capability bits for use in the 6CIO,
	which was
	introduced by <xref target="RFC7400"/> for use in IPv6 ND RA messages.
    </t>
    <t>
	Routers that support this specification SHOULD set the "E" flag and 6LN
	SHOULD favor 6LR routers that support this specification over those
	that do not.  Routers that are capable of acting as 6LR, 6LBR and 6BBR
	SHOULD set the "L", "B" and "P" flags, respectively. In particular, the
	function 6LR is often collocated with that of 6LBR.
    </t>
    <t>
	Those flags are not mutually exclusive and if a router is capable of
	performing multiple functions, it SHOULD set all the related flags.
    </t>
    <figure anchor='fig6CIO'
			title="New capability Bits L, B, P, E in the 6CIO">
    <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        |L|B|P|E|G|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Reserved                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ]]></artwork>
    </figure>

    <t> Option Fields
	<list style='hanging'>
	<t hangText="Type:"> 36 </t>
	<t hangText="L:"> Node is a 6LR, it can take registrations.  </t>
	<t hangText="B:"> Node is a 6LBR.  </t>
	<t hangText="P:"> Node is a 6BBR, proxying for nodes on this link. </t>
	<t hangText="E:"> This specification is supported and applied.  </t>
	</list> </t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "New 6LoWPAN Capability Bits in the Capability
							Indication Option" -->
</section>	<!-- end section "Extended ND Options And Messages" -->
	
<section anchor="back" title="Backward Compatibility">

    <section anchor="dsc" title="Discovering the capabilities of an ND peer">
	<section title='Using the "E" Flag in the 6CIO'>
	<t>
	    If the 6CIO is used in an ND message and the sending node supports
	    this specification, then the "E" Flag MUST be set.
	</t>
	<t>
	    A router that supports this specification SHOULD
	    indicate that with a 6CIO.
<!--  CEP: The following is unintuitive, since 6CIO is the
      	smallest option	listed in this document.
					, but this might not be practical
	    if the link-layer MTU is too small. -->
	</t>
	<t>
	    If the Registering Node (RN) receives a 6CIO in a Router
	    Advertisement message, then the setting of the "E" Flag indicates
	    whether or not this specification is supported.
<!-- CEP: already said this several times.
     						RN SHOULD favor a router that
	    supports this specification over those that do not.  -->
    	</t>
	</section> <!-- end section "Using the "E" Flag in the 6CIO" -->

	<section title='Using the "T" Flag in the EARO'>
	<t>
	    One alternate way for a 6LN to discover the router's capabilities
	    to first register a Link Local address, placing the same address in
	    the Source and Target Address fields of the NS message, and setting
	    the "T" Flag.  The node may for instance register an address that
	    is based on EUI-64.  For such address, DAD is not required and
	    using the SLLAO option in the NS is actually more consistent with
	    existing ND specifications such as the <xref target="RFC4429">
	    "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6"</xref>.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Once its first registration is complete, the node knows from the
	    setting of the "T" Flag in the response whether the router supports
	    this specification.  If support is verified, the node may register
	    other addresses that it owns, or proxy-register addresses on behalf
	    some another node, indicating those addresses being registered in
	    the Target Address field of the NS messages, while using one of
	    its own previously registered addresses as source.
<!--	CEP: This conlicts with earlier language about MUST use link-local.	
	 	I need to review to see what's going on. -->
	</t>
	<t>
	    A node that supports this specification MUST always use an EARO as
	    a replacement to an ARO in its registration to a router.
	    This is harmless since the "T" flag and TID field are reserved in
	    <xref target="RFC6775"/>, and are ignored by a legacy
	    router.  A router that supports this specification answers an
	    ARO with an ARO and answers an EARO with an EARO.
<!-- CEP:    (but see **)  -->
	</t>
	<t>
	    This specification changes the behavior of the peers in a
	    registration flows. To enable backward compatibility, a 6LB that
	    registers to a 6LR that is not known to support this specification
	    MUST behave in a manner that is compatible with
	    <xref target="RFC6775"/>. A 6LN
	    can achieve that by sending a NS(EARO) message with a Link-Local
	    Address used as both Source and Target Address, as described in
	    <xref target="llar"/>. Once the 6LR is known to support this
	    specification, the 6LN MUST obey this specification.
	</t>
	</section>	<!-- end section "Using the "T" Flag in the EARO" -->
    </section><!-- end section "Discovering the capabilities of an ND peer" -->

    <section title="Legacy 6LoWPAN Node">
	<t>
	    A legacy 6LN will use the Registered Address as source and will
	    not use an EARO option.  An updated 6LR MUST accept that 
	    registration if it is valid per
	    <xref target="RFC6775"/>, and it MUST manage the 
	    binding cache accordingly. The updated 6LR MUST then use the 
	    legacy Duplicate Address messages as specified in
	    <xref target="RFC6775"/> to 
	    indicate to the 6LBR that the TID is not present in the messages.
	</t>
	<t>
	    The main difference with
	    <xref target="RFC6775"/> is that Duplicate Address
	    exchange for DAD is avoided for Link-Local addresses.  In any case,
	    the 6LR SHOULD use an EARO in the reply, and may use any of the
	    Status codes defined in this specification.		
<!-- CEP: Is this intended refer only for updated 6LNs?   Otherwise, why use a
     status code or option that is unintelligible to the recipient? -->
	</t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Legacy 6LoWPAN Node" -->
		
    <section title="Legacy 6LoWPAN Router">
	<t>
	    The first registration by an updated 6LN MUST be for a Link-Local
	    address, using that Link-Local address as source. A legacy 6LR will
	    not make a difference and treat that registration as
	    if the 6LN was a legacy node.
	</t>
	<t>
	    An updated 6LN will always use an EARO option in the registration
	    NS message, whereas a legacy 6LR will always reply with an ARO
	    option in the NA message.  From that first registration, the
	    updated 6LN can determine whether or not the 6LR supports
	    this specification.
	</t>
	<t>
	    After detecting a legacy 6LR, an updated 6LN may attempt to find an
	    alternate 6LR that is updated.
<!--  	CEP: The following is superfluous.  What else could the 6LN do??
      	    In order to be backward compatible, after detecting that a 6LR is
	    legacy, the 6LN MUST adhere to <xref target="RFC6775"/> in
	    future protocol exchanges with that 6LR, and source the
	    packet with the Registered Address.
  -->
	</t>
	<t>
	    An updated 6LN SHOULD use an EARO in the request
	    regardless of the type of 6LR, legacy or updated, which implies
	    that the "T" flag is set.
<!-- CEP:  Why use a option that is unintelligible to the recipient? -->
	</t>
	<t>
	    If an updated 6LN moves from an updated 6LR to a legacy 6LR, the
	    legacy 6LR will send a legacy DAR message, which can not be
	    compared with an updated one for freshness.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Allowing legacy DAR messages to replace a state established by the
	    updated protocol in the 6LBR would be an attack vector and that
	    cannot be the default behavior.
	</t>
	<t>
	    But if legacy and updated 6LRs coexist temporarily in a network,
	    then it makes sense for an administrator to install a policy that
	    allows so, and the capability to install such a policy should be
	    configurable in a 6LBR though it is out of scope for this document.
<!-- CEP: Maybe an updated EARO SHOULD always win over legacy protocol?
     If so, then this paragraph ought to be deleted. -->
	</t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Legacy 6LoWPAN Router" -->

    <section title="Legacy 6LoWPAN Border Router">
    <t>
	With this specification, the Duplicate Address messages are extended to
	transport the EARO information. Similarly to the NS/NA exchange,
	updated 6LBR devices always use the Extended Duplicate Address messages
	and all the associated behavior so they can amlways be differentiated
	from legacy ones.
    </t>
    <t>
	Note that a legacy 6LBR will accept and process an EDAR message as if it
	was a legacy DAR, so legacy support of DAD is preserved.
    <!--
	This case is expected to be rare, considering that
	there are a lot fewer 6LBRs than 6LRs, so the expectation that 6LBRs are
	upgraded as soon as devices that implement this specification are
	deployed appears reasonable. -->
    </t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Legacy 6LoWPAN Border Router" -->
</section>	<!-- end section "Backward Compatibility" -->

<section  anchor="sec" title="Security Considerations">
    <t>
	This specification extends <xref target="RFC6775"/>, and
	the security section of that draft also applies to this as well. In
	particular, it is expected that the link layer is sufficiently
	protected to prevent a rogue access, either by means of physical or IP
	security on the Backbone Link and link layer cryptography on the LLN.
<!--  CEP: That is a strong assumption.  Any estimate on how many 802.15.4	
		 		devices could support it?   -->
    </t>
    <t>
	This specification also expects that the LLN MAC provides secure
	unicast to/from the Backbone Router and secure Broadcast from the
	Backbone Router in a way that prevents tempering with or replaying
	the RA messages.
    </t>
    <t>
	This specification recommends to using privacy techniques (see
	<xref target="priv"/>, and protection against address theft such
	as provided by <xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd">"Address Protected
	Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks"</xref>, which
	guarantees the ownership of the Registered Address using a
	cryptographic OUID.
<!--  CEP: This creates a normative dependency on ietf-6lo-ap-nd. -->
    </t>
    <t>
	The registration mechanism may be used by a rogue node to attack the
	6LR or the 6LBR with a Denial-of-Service attack against the registry.
<!--  CEP: This really is a serious problem for process-control IoT. -->
	It may also happen that the registry of a 6LR or a 6LBR is saturated
	and cannot take any more registration, which effectively denies
	the requesting a node the capability to use a new address.
	In order to alleviate those concerns, <xref target='sta'/> provides
	a number of recommendations that ensure that a stale registration is
	removed as soon as possible from the 6LR and 6LBR.
	In particular, this specification recommends that:
	<list style='symbols'>
	<t> A node that ceases to use an address SHOULD attempt to deregister
	    that address from all the 6LRs to which it is registered.  See
	    <xref target='tid'/> for the mechanism to avoid replay attacks
	    and avoiding the use of stale registration information.
	</t>
	<t>
	    The Registration lifetimes SHOULD be individually configurable for
	    each address or group of addresses.  The nodes SHOULD be configured
	    with a Registration Lifetime that reflects their expectation of how
	    long they will use the address with the 6LR to which it is
	    registered. In particular, use cases that involve mobility or
	    rapid address changes SHOULD use lifetimes that are larger yet of
	    a same order as the duration of the expectation of presence.
<!--  CEP: mobility isn't so easy characterized.  -->
	</t>
	<t>
	    The router (6LR or 6LBR) SHOULD be configurable so as to limit the
	    number of addresses that can be registered by a single node, as
	    identified at least by MAC address and preferably by security
	    credentials.  When that maximum is reached, the router should use a
	    Least-Recently-Used (LRU) algorithm to clean up the addresses,
	    keeping at least one Link-Local address.  The router
	    SHOULD attempt to keep one or more stable addresses if stability
	    can be determined, e.g. from the way the IID is
	    formed or because they are used over a much longer time span than
	    other (privacy, shorter-lived) addresses.  Address lifetimes
	    SHOULD be individually configurable.
<!--  CEP TODO: A notification to the owner is NEEDED if an address is deleted.
    -->
	</t>
	<t>
	    In order to avoid denial of registration for the lack of resources,
	    administrators should take great care to deploy adequate numbers of
	    6LRs to cover the needs of the nodes in their range, so as to avoid
	    a situation of starving nodes. It is expected that the 6LBR that
	    serves a LLN is a more capable node then the average 6LR, but in a
	    network condition where it may become saturated, a particular
	    deployment should distribute the 6LBR functionality, for instance
	    by leveraging a high speed Backbone and Backbone Routers
	    to aggregate multiple LLNs into a larger subnet.
	</t>
	</list> </t>
    <!-- for 6BBR t>
	When the ownership of the OUID cannot be assessed, this specification
	limits the cases where the OUID and the TID are multicasted, and
	obfuscates them in responses to attempts to take over an address.
    </t -->
    <t>
	The LLN nodes depend on the 6LBR and the 6BBR for their operation.
	A trust model must be put in place to ensure that the right devices are
	acting in these roles, so as to avoid threats such as black-holing,
	or bombing attack whereby an impersonated 6LBR would destroy state in
	the network by using the "Removed" Status code.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- end section "Security Considerations" -->

<section anchor="priv" title="Privacy Considerations">
    <t>
	As indicated in section <xref target="appli"/>, this protocol does not
	aim at limiting the number of IPv6 addresses that a device can form.
	A host should be able to form and register any address that is
	topologically correct in the subnet(s) advertised by the 6LR/6LBR.
    </t>
    <t>
	This specification does not mandate any particular way for forming IPv6
	addresses, but it discourages using EUI-64 for forming the Interface
	ID in the Link-Local address because this method prevents the usage of
	<xref target="RFC3971">"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)"</xref> and
	<xref target="RFC3972">"Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)"
	</xref>, and that of address privacy techniques.
    </t>
    <t>
	<xref target="RFC8065">
	"Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation-Layer Mechanisms"</xref>
	explains why privacy is important and how to form such addresses.  All
	implementations and deployment must consider the option of privacy
	addresses in their own environment.  Also future specifications
	involving 6LOWPAN Neighbor Discovery should consult
	<xref target="RFC8064">
	"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers"</xref>
	for default interface identifaction.
    </t>	
</section>	<!-- end section "Privacy Considerations" -->

<section title="IANA Considerations">
    <t>
	IANA is requested to make a number of changes under the
	"Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters"
	registry, as follows.
    </t>
    <section title="ARO Flags">
	<t>
	    IANA is requested to create a new subregistry for "ARO Flags".
	    This specification defines 8 positions, bit 0 to bit 7, and assigns
	    bit 7 for the "T" flag in <xref target="earo"/>.  The policy is
	    "IETF Review" or "IESG Approval" <xref target="RFC8126"/>.
	    The initial
	    content of the registry is as shown in <xref target="ARObit"/>.
	</t>

	<texttable anchor="ARObit" title="new ARO Flags">
	<preamble> New subregistry for ARO Flags under the
			"Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6)
			<xref target="RFC4443"/> Parameters"</preamble>
				<ttcol align="center"> ARO Status </ttcol>
				<ttcol align="left"> Description </ttcol>
				<ttcol align="left"> Document </ttcol>
	  <c> 0..6 </c>	    <c>Unassigned</c>		<c></c>
	  <c> 7 </c>	    <c>"T" Flag</c>		<c>This RFC</c>
	</texttable>	<!-- end table "new ARO Flags" -->
    </section>	<!-- end section "ARO Flags" -->

    <section title="ICMP Codes">
	<t>
	    IANA is requested to create a new entry in the ICMPv6 "Code" Fields
	    subregistry of the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6
	    (ICMPv6) Parameters for the ICMP codes related to the ICMP type
	    157 and 158 Duplicate Address Request
	    (shown in <xref target="DARcode"/>) and Confirmation
	    (shown in <xref target="DACcode"/>), respectively, as follows:
	</t>

	<texttable anchor="DARcode" title="new ICMPv6 Code Fields">
	  <preamble> New entries for ICMP types 157 DAR message </preamble>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Code </ttcol>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Name </ttcol>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Reference </ttcol>
	  <c>0</c>   <c>Original DAR message</c>	<c>RFC 6775</c>
	  <c>1</c>   <c>Extended DAR message</c>	<c>This RFC</c>
	</texttable>	<!-- end table "new ICMPv6 Code Fields" -->

	<texttable anchor="DACcode" title="new ICMPv6 Code Fields">
	  <preamble>New entries for ICMP types 158 DAC message</preamble>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Code </ttcol>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Name </ttcol>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Reference </ttcol>
	  <c>0</c>   <c>Original DAC message</c>	<c>RFC 6775</c>
	  <c>1</c>   <c>Extended DAC message</c>	<c>This RFC</c>
	</texttable>	<!-- end table "new ICMPv6 Code Fields" -->
    </section>	<!-- end section "ICMP Codes" -->

    <section title="New ARO Status values">
	<t> IANA is requested to make additions to the Address Registration
	    Option Status Values Registry as follows:
	</t>

	<texttable anchor="AROstat" title="New ARO Status values">
	<preamble>Address Registration Option Status Values Registry</preamble>
	  			<ttcol align="center"> ARO Status </ttcol>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Description </ttcol>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Document </ttcol>
	  <c>3</c>   <c>Moved</c>			<c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>4</c>   <c>Removed</c>			<c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>5</c>   <c>Validation Requested</c>	<c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>6</c>   <c>Duplicate Source Address</c>    <c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>7</c>   <c>Invalid Source Address</c>      <c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>8</c>   <c>Registered Address topologically incorrect</c>
							<c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>9</c>   <c>6LBR registry saturated</c>     <c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>10</c>  <c>Validation Failed</c>		<c>This RFC</c>
	</texttable>	<!-- end table "new ARO Status values" -->
    </section>	<!-- end section "New ARO Status values" -->

    <section title="New 6LoWPAN capability Bits">
	<t>
	    IANA is requested to make additions to the Subregistry for
	    "6LoWPAN capability Bits" as follows:
	</t>

	<texttable anchor="CIOdat" title="New 6LoWPAN capability Bits">
	<preamble> Subregistry for "6LoWPAN capability Bits" under the
	    "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters"
	</preamble>
	  			<ttcol align="center"> Capability Bit </ttcol>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Description </ttcol>
	  			<ttcol align="left"> Document </ttcol>
	  <c>11</c>  <c>6LR  capable (L bit)</c>    <c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>12</c>  <c>6LBR capable (B bit)</c>    <c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>13</c>  <c>6BBR capable (P bit)</c>    <c>This RFC</c>
	  <c>14</c>  <c>EARO support (E bit)</c>    <c>This RFC</c>
	</texttable>	<!-- end table "New 6LoWPAN capability Bits" -->
    </section>	<!-- end section "New 6LoWPAN capability Bits" -->
</section>	<!-- end section "IANA Considerations" -->

<section title="Acknowledgments">
    <t>
	Kudos to Eric Levy-Abegnoli who designed the First Hop Security
	infrastructure upon which the first backbone router was implemented.
	Many thanks to Sedat Gormus, Rahul Jadhav
	and Lorenzo Colitti for their various contributions and reviews.  Also
	many thanks to Thomas Watteyne for his early implementation of a 6LN
	that was instrumental to the early tests of the 6LR, 6LBR and Backbone
	Router.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- end section "Acknowledgments" -->

</middle>

<back>
    <references title='Normative References'>
	<!-- RFC  -->
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4291.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4443.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4861.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4862.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8126.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6282.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6775.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7400.xml'?>

	<!-- I-D -->
    </references>
	
    <references title='Informative References'>
	<!-- RFC  -->
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.1982.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3810.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3971.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3972.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4429.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4919.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4941.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6550.xml'?>
	<!--?rfc include='reference.RFC.7102.xml'?-->
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7217.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7934.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8065.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8105.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8163.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7428.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7668.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3610.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.RFC.8064.xml'?>

    <!-- I-D -->
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bier-architecture'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.popa-6lo-6loplc-ipv6-over-ieee19012-networks.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.delcarpio-6lo-wlanah.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets.xml'?>
	<!--?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology.xml'?-->
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture.xml'?>
	<?rfc include='reference.I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd.xml'?>
    </references>

    <references title="External Informative References">
	<reference anchor="IEEEstd802154"
			target ="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460875/">
	<front>
	    <title>IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks</title>
	    <author>
		<organization>IEEE</organization>
	    </author>
	    <date month="June"  year="2017" />
	</front>
	<seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="Standard 802.15.4"/>
	<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.1109/IEEE P802.15.4-REVd/D01"/>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="Perlman83" target=
	  "http://www.cs.illinois.edu/~pbg/courses/cs598fa09/readings/p83.pdf">
	<front>
	    <title abbrev="Perlman83"> Fault-Tolerant Broadcast of Routing
							Information</title>
	    <author fullname="Radia Perlman" initials="R." surname="Perlman">
	    <organization>Digital Equipment Corp.</organization>
	    </author>
	    <date year="1983" />
	</front>

	<seriesInfo name="North-Holland Computer Networks 7:" value="395-405"/>
	  <format target=
	  "http://www.cs.illinois.edu/~pbg/courses/cs598fa09/readings/p83.pdf"
		type="HTML" />
	</reference>
    </references>
	
<section title="Applicability and Requirements Served">
    <t>
	This specification extends 6LoWPAN ND to sequence the registration and
	serves the requirements expressed <xref target="Req1"/> by enabling the
	mobility of devices from one LLN to the next based on the complementary
	work in the
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router">"IPv6 Backbone Router"
	</xref> specification.
    </t>
    <t>
	In the context of the the TimeSlotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) mode of
	<xref target="IEEEstd802154">IEEE Std. 802.15.4</xref>, the
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture">
	"6TiSCH architecture"</xref> introduces how a 6LoWPAN ND host could
	connect to the Internet via a RPL mesh Network, but this requires
	additions to the 6LOWPAN ND protocol to support mobility and
	reachability in a secured and manageable environment. This
	specification details the new operations that are required to implement
	the 6TiSCH architecture and serves the
	requirements listed in <xref target="Req2"/>.
    </t>
    <t>
	The term LLN is used loosely in this specification to cover multiple
	types of WLANs and WPANs, including <!--classical IEEE Std.802.11
	basic service set (BSS), -->Low-Power Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy,
	IEEE Std.802.11AH <!--and Wi-Fi --> and IEEE Std.802.15.4 wireless
	meshes, so as to address the requirements discussed in
	<xref target="Req3"/>.
    </t>
	
    <t>
	This specification can be used by any wireless node to associate at
	Layer-3 with a 6BBR and register its IPv6 addresses to obtain routing
	services including proxy-ND operations over the Backbone, effectively
	providing a solution to the requirements expressed in
	<xref target="Req4"/>.
    </t>

    <t>
	<xref target="I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd">
	"Efficiency aware IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Optimizations"</xref>
	suggests that <xref target="RFC6775">6LoWPAN ND</xref> can be extended
	to other types
	of links beyond IEEE Std. 802.15.4 for which it was defined.
	The registration technique is beneficial when the Link-Layer technique
	used to carry IPv6 multicast packets is not sufficiently efficient in
	terms of delivery ratio or energy consumption in the end devices, in
	particular to enable energy-constrained sleeping nodes.  The value of
	such extension is especially apparent in the case of mobile wireless
	nodes, to reduce the multicast operations that are related to IPv6
	ND (<xref target="RFC4861"/>, <xref target="RFC4862"/>) and plague the
	wireless medium. This serves scalability requirements listed
	in <xref target="Req6"/>.
    </t>
</section>	<!-- end section "Applicability and Requirements Served" -->

<section title="Requirements">
    <t>
	This section lists requirements that were discussed at 6lo for an
	update to 6LoWPAN ND. This specification meets most of them, but those
	listed in <xref target="Req5"/> which are deferred to a different
	specification such as <xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd"/>, and those
	related to multicast.
    </t>

    <section anchor='Req1' title="Requirements Related to Mobility">
	<t>
	    Due to the unstable nature of LLN links, even in a LLN of immobile
	    nodes a 6LN may change its point of attachment to a 6LR, say 6LR-a,
	    and may not be able to notify 6LR-a. Consequently, 6LR-a may still
	    attract traffic that it cannot deliver any more. When links to a
	    6LR change state, there is thus a need to identify stale states in
	    a 6LR and restore reachability in a timely fashion.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req1.1: Upon a change of point of attachment, connectivity via a
	    new 6LR MUST be restored timely without the need to de-register
	    from the previous 6LR.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req1.2: For that purpose, the protocol MUST enable to differentiate
	    between multiple registrations from one 6LoWPAN Node and
	    registrations from different 6LoWPAN Nodes claiming the same
	    address.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req1.3: Stale states MUST be cleaned up in 6LRs.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req1.4: A 6LoWPAN Node SHOULD also be capable to register its
	    Address to multiple 6LRs, and this, concurrently.
	</t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Requirements Related to Mobility" -->

    <section anchor='Req2' title="Requirements Related to Routing Protocols">
	<t>
	    The point of attachment of a 6LN may be a 6LR in an LLN mesh.
	    IPv6 routing in a LLN can be based on RPL, which is the routing
	    protocol that was defined at the IETF for this particular purpose.
	    Other routing protocols than RPL are also considered by Standard
	    Defining Organizations (SDO) on the basis of the expected network
	    characteristics.  It is required that a 6LoWPAN Node attached via
	    ND to a 6LR would need to participate in the selected routing
	    protocol to obtain reachability via the 6LR.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Next to the 6LBR unicast address registered by ND, other addresses
	    including multicast addresses are needed as well. For example a
	    routing protocol often uses a multicast address to register changes
	    to established paths.  ND needs to register such a multicast
	    address to enable routing concurrently with discovery.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Multicast is needed for groups. Groups may be formed by device
	    type (e.g. routers, street lamps), location (Geography,
	    RPL sub-tree), or both.
	</t>
	<t>
	    The Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
	    <xref target="I-D.ietf-bier-architecture">Architecture</xref>
	    proposes an optimized technique to enable multicast in a LLN
	    with a very limited requirement for routing state in the nodes.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Related requirements are:
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req2.1: The ND registration method SHOULD be extended so that
	    the 6LR is able to advertise the Address of a 6LoWPAN Node
	    over the selected routing protocol and obtain reachability to that
	    Address using the selected routing protocol.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req2.2: Considering RPL, the Address Registration Option that is
	    used in the ND registration SHOULD be extended to carry enough
	    information to generate a DAO message as specified in
	    <xref target="RFC6550"/> section 6.4, in particular the capability
	    to compute a Path Sequence and, as an option, a RPLInstanceID.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req2.3: Multicast operations SHOULD be supported and optimized,
	    for instance using BIER or MPL. Whether ND is appropriate for the
	    registration to the 6BBR is to be defined, considering the
	    additional burden of supporting the <xref target="RFC3810">
	    Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 </xref> (MLDv2) for IPv6.
	</t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Requirements Related to Routing Protocols" -->

    <section anchor='Req3'
	title="Requirements Related to the Variety of Low-Power Link types">
	<t>
	    <xref target="RFC6775">6LoWPAN ND</xref> was defined with a focus
	    on IEEE Std.802.15.4 and in particular the capability to derive a
	    unique Identifier from a globally unique MAC-64 address. At this
	    point, the 6lo Working Group is extending the
	    <xref target="RFC6282">6LoWPAN Header Compression (HC) </xref>
	    technique to other link types
	    <xref target="RFC7428">ITU-T G.9959</xref>,
	    <xref target="RFC8163">Master-Slave/Token-Passing</xref>,
	    <xref target="RFC8105">DECT Ultra Low Energy</xref>,
	    <xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc">Near Field Communication</xref>,
	    <xref target="I-D.delcarpio-6lo-wlanah">IEEE Std. 802.11ah</xref>,
	    as well as
	    <xref target="I-D.popa-6lo-6loplc-ipv6-over-ieee19012-networks">
	    IEEE1901.2 Narrowband Powerline Communication Networks</xref>
	    and <xref target="RFC7668">BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy</xref>.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Related requirements are:
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req3.1: The support of the registration mechanism SHOULD be
	    extended to more LLN links than IEEE Std.802.15.4, matching at
	    least the LLN links for which an "IPv6 over foo" specification
	    exists, as well as Low-Power Wi-Fi.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req3.2: As part of this extension, a mechanism to compute a unique
	    Identifier should be provided, with the capability to form a
	    Link-Local Address that SHOULD be unique at least within the LLN
	    connected to a 6LBR discovered by ND in each node within the LLN.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req3.3: The Address Registration Option used in the ND registration
	    SHOULD be extended to carry the relevant forms of unique Identifier.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req3.4: The Neighbour Discovery should specify the formation of a
	    site-local address that follows the security recommendations from
	    <xref target="RFC7217"/>.
 	</t>
    </section>	<!-- end section
	      "Requirements Related to the Variety of Low-Power Link types" -->

    <section anchor='Req4' title="Requirements Related to Proxy Operations">
	 <t>
	    Duty-cycled devices may not be able to answer themselves to a
	    lookup from a node that uses IPv6 ND on a Backbone and may
	    need a proxy. Additionally, the duty-cycled device may need to
	    rely on the 6LBR to perform registration to the 6BBR.
	</t>
	<t>
	    The ND registration method SHOULD defend the addresses of
	    duty-cycled devices that are sleeping most of the time and not
	    capable to defend their own Addresses.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Related requirements are:
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req4.1: The registration mechanism SHOULD enable a third party to
	    proxy register an Address on behalf of a 6LoWPAN node that may be
	    sleeping or located deeper in an LLN mesh.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req4.2: The registration mechanism SHOULD be applicable to a
	    duty-cycled device regardless of the link type, and enable a 6BBR
	    to operate as a proxy to defend the Registered Addresses on its
	    behalf.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req4.3: The registration mechanism SHOULD enable long sleep
	    durations, in the order of multiple days to a month.
	</t>
    </section> <!-- end section "Requirements Related to Proxy Operations"-->

    <section anchor='Req5' title="Requirements Related to Security">
	<t> In order to guarantee the operations of the 6LoWPAN ND flows, the
	    spoofing of the 6LR, 6LBR and 6BBRs roles should be avoided. Once
	    a node successfully registers an address, 6LoWPAN ND should provide
	    energy-efficient means for the 6LBR to protect that ownership even
	    when the node that registered the address is sleeping.
	</t>
	<t>
 	    In particular, the 6LR and the 6LBR then should be able to verify
	    whether a subsequent registration for a given address comes from
	    the original node.
	</t>
	<t>
	    In a LLN it makes sense to base security on layer-2 security.
	    During bootstrap of the LLN, nodes join the network after
	    authorization by a Joining Assistant (JA) or a Commissioning Tool
	    (CT). After joining nodes communicate with each other via secured
	    links. The keys for the layer-2 security are distributed by the
	    JA/CT. The JA/CT can be part of the LLN or be outside the LLN.
	    In both cases it is needed that packets are routed between JA/CT
	    and the joining node.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Related requirements are:
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.1: 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD provide a mechanism
	    for the 6LR, 6LBR and 6BBR to authenticate and authorize one
	    another for their respective roles, as well as with the 6LoWPAN
	    Node for the role of 6LR.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.2: 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD provide a mechanism
	    for the 6LR and the 6LBR to validate new registration of authorized
	    nodes.  Joining of unauthorized nodes MUST be impossible.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.3: 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD lead to small packet
	    sizes. In particular, the NS, NA, DAR and DAC messages for a
	    re-registration flow SHOULD NOT exceed 80 octets so as to fit in a
	    secured IEEE Std.802.15.4 <xref target="IEEEstd802154"/> frame.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.4: Recurrent 6LoWPAN ND security operations MUST NOT be
	    computationally intensive on the LoWPAN Node CPU. When a Key hash
	    calculation is employed, a mechanism lighter than SHA-1 SHOULD be
	    preferred.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.5: The number of Keys that the 6LoWPAN Node needs to
	    manipulate SHOULD be minimized.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.6: The 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD enable the
	    variation of CCM <xref target="RFC3610"/> called CCM* for use at
	    both Layer 2 and Layer 3, and SHOULD enable the reuse of security
	    code that has to be present on the device for upper layer security
	    such as TLS.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.7: Public key and signature sizes SHOULD be minimized while
	    maintaining adequate confidentiality and data origin authentication
	    for multiple types of applications with various degrees of
	    criticality.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.8: Routing of packets should continue when links pass from
	    the unsecured to the secured state.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req5.9: 6LoWPAN ND security mechanisms SHOULD provide a mechanism
	    for the 6LR and the 6LBR to validate whether a new registration
	    for a given address corresponds to the same 6LoWPAN Node that
	    registered it initially, and, if not, determine the rightful owner,
	    and deny or clean-up the registration that is duplicate.
	</t>
    </section>	<!-- end section "Requirements Related to Security" -->

    <section anchor='Req6' title="Requirements Related to Scalability">
	<t>
	    Use cases from Automatic Meter Reading (AMR, collection tree
	    operations) and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI,
	    bi-directional communication to the meters) indicate the needs for
	    a large number of LLN nodes pertaining to a single RPL DODAG
	    (e.g. 5000) and connected to the 6LBR over a large number of
	    LLN hops (e.g. 15).
	</t>
	<t>
	    Related requirements are:
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req6.1: The registration mechanism SHOULD enable a single 6LBR to
	    register multiple thousands of devices.
	</t>
	<t>
	    Req6.2: The timing of the registration operation should allow for
	    a large latency such as found in LLNs with ten and more hops.
	</t>
    </section>    <!-- end section "Requirements Related to Scalability" -->
</section>	<!-- end section "Requirements" -->

</back>

</rfc>
