path: root/doc/rfc/rfc8929.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                   P. Thubert, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8929                                 Cisco Systems
Updates: 6775, 8505                                         C.E. Perkins
Category: Standards Track                         Blue Meadow Networking
ISSN: 2070-1721                                         E. Levy-Abegnoli
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                           November 2020


                          IPv6 Backbone Router

Abstract

   This document updates RFCs 6775 and 8505 in order to enable proxy
   services for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery by Routing Registrars called
   "Backbone Routers".  Backbone Routers are placed along the wireless
   edge of a backbone and federate multiple wireless links to form a
   single Multi-Link Subnet (MLSN).

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8929.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Terminology
     2.1.  Requirements Language
     2.2.  New Terms
     2.3.  Abbreviations
     2.4.  Background
   3.  Overview
     3.1.  Updating RFCs 6775 and 8505
     3.2.  Access Link
     3.3.  Route-Over Mesh
     3.4.  The Binding Table
     3.5.  Primary and Secondary 6BBRs
     3.6.  Using Optimistic DAD
   4.  Multi-Link Subnet Considerations
   5.  Optional 6LBR Serving the Multi-Link Subnet
   6.  Using IPv6 ND over the Backbone Link
   7.  Routing Proxy Operations
   8.  Bridging Proxy Operations
   9.  Creating and Maintaining a Binding
     9.1.  Operations on a Binding in Tentative State
     9.2.  Operations on a Binding in Reachable State
     9.3.  Operations on a Binding in Stale State
   10. Registering Node Considerations
   11. Security Considerations
   12. Protocol Constants
   13. IANA Considerations
   14. Normative References
   15. Informative References
   Appendix A.  Possible Future Extensions
   Appendix B.  Applicability and Requirements Served
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   Ethernet bridging per IEEE Std 802.1 [IEEEstd8021Q] provides an
   efficient and reliable broadcast service for wired networks;
   applications and protocols have been built that heavily depend on
   that feature for their core operation.  Unfortunately, Low-Power and
   Lossy Networks (LLNs) and local wireless networks generally do not
   provide the broadcast capabilities of Ethernet bridging in an
   economical fashion.

   As a result, protocols designed for bridged networks that rely on
   multicast and broadcast often exhibit disappointing behaviors when
   employed unmodified on a local wireless medium (see
   [MCAST-PROBLEMS]).

   Wi-Fi [IEEEstd80211] Access Points (APs) deployed in an Extended
   Service Set (ESS) act as Ethernet bridges [IEEEstd8021Q], with the
   property that the bridging state is established at the time of
   association.  This ensures connectivity to the end node (the Wi-Fi
   Station (STA)) and protects the wireless medium against broadcast-
   intensive transparent bridging [IEEEstd8021Q] reactive lookups.  In
   other words, the association process is used to register the link-
   layer address of the STA to the AP.  The AP subsequently proxies the
   bridging operation and does not need to forward the broadcast lookups
   over the radio.

   In the same way as transparent bridging, the IPv6 [RFC8200] Neighbor
   Discovery (IPv6 ND) protocol [RFC4861] [RFC4862] is a reactive
   protocol, based on multicast transmissions to locate an on-link
   correspondent and ensure the uniqueness of an IPv6 address.  The
   mechanism for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) [RFC4862] was
   designed for the efficient broadcast operation of Ethernet bridging.
   Since broadcast can be unreliable over wireless media, DAD often
   fails to discover duplications [DAD-ISSUES].  In practice, the fact
   that IPv6 addresses very rarely conflict is mostly attributable to
   the entropy of the 64-bit Interface IDs as opposed to the successful
   operation of the IPv6 ND DAD and resolution mechanisms.

   The IPv6 ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS) [RFC4861] message is used for
   DAD and address lookup when a node moves or wakes up and reconnects
   to the wireless network.  The NS message is targeted to a Solicited-
   Node Multicast Address (SNMA) [RFC4291] and should, in theory, only
   reach a very small group of nodes.  But, in reality, IPv6 multicast
   messages are typically broadcast on the wireless medium, so they are
   processed by most of the wireless nodes over the subnet (e.g., the
   ESS fabric) regardless of how few of the nodes are subscribed to the
   SNMA.  As a result, IPv6 ND address lookups and DADs over a large
   wireless network and/or LLN can consume enough bandwidth to cause a
   substantial degradation to the unicast traffic service.

   Because IPv6 ND messages sent to the SNMA group are broadcast at the
   radio link layer, wireless nodes that do not belong to the SNMA group
   still have to keep their radio turned on to listen to multicast NS
   messages, which is a waste of energy for them.  In order to reduce
   their power consumption, certain battery-operated devices such as
   Internet of Things (IoT) sensors and smartphones ignore some of the
   broadcasts, making IPv6 ND operations even less reliable.

   These problems can be alleviated by reducing the IPv6 ND broadcasts
   over wireless access links.  This has been done by splitting the
   broadcast domains and routing between subnets.  At the extreme, this
   can be done by assigning a /64 prefix to each wireless node (see
   [RFC8273]).  But deploying a single large subnet can still be
   attractive to avoid renumbering in situations that involve large
   numbers of devices and mobility within a bounded area.

   A way to reduce the propagation of IPv6 ND broadcast in the wireless
   domain while preserving a large single subnet is to form a Multi-Link
   Subnet (MLSN).  Each link in the MLSN, including the backbone, is its
   own broadcast domain.  A key property of MLSNs is that link-local
   unicast traffic, link-scope multicast, and traffic with a hop limit
   of 1 will not transit to nodes in the same subnet on a different
   link, which is something that may produce unexpected behavior in
   software that expects a subnet to be entirely contained within a
   single link.

   This specification considers a special type of MLSN with a central
   backbone that federates edge (LLN) links, with each link providing
   its own protection against rogue access and tempering or replaying
   packets.  In particular, the use of classical IPv6 ND on the backbone
   requires that the all nodes are trusted and that rogue access to the
   backbone is prevented at all times (see Section 11).

   In that particular topology, ND proxies can be placed at the boundary
   of the edge links and the backbone to handle IPv6 ND on behalf of
   Registered Nodes and to forward IPv6 packets back and forth.  The ND
   proxy enables the continuity of IPv6 ND operations beyond the
   backbone and enables communication using Global or Unique Local
   Addresses between any pair of nodes in the MLSN.

   The 6LoWPAN Backbone Router (6BBR) is a Routing Registrar [RFC8505]
   that provides ND proxy services.  A 6BBR acting as a Bridging Proxy
   provides an ND proxy function with Layer 2 continuity and can be
   collocated with a Wi-Fi AP as prescribed by IEEE Std 802.11
   [IEEEstd80211].  A 6BBR acting as a Routing Proxy is applicable to
   any type of LLN, including LLNs that cannot be bridged onto the
   backbone, such as IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEEstd802154].

   Knowledge of which address to proxy can be obtained by snooping the
   IPv6 ND protocol (see [SAVI-WLAN]), but it has been found to be
   unreliable.  An IPv6 address may not be discovered immediately due to
   a packet loss or if a "silent" node is not currently using one of its
   addresses.  A change of state (e.g., due to movement) may be missed
   or misordered, leading to unreliable connectivity and incomplete
   knowledge of the state of the network.

   With this specification, the address to be proxied is signaled
   explicitly through a registration process.  A 6LoWPAN Node (6LN)
   registers all of its IPv6 addresses using NS messages with an
   Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) as specified in [RFC8505]
   to a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR) to which it is directly attached.  If the
   6LR is a 6BBR, then the 6LN is both the Registered Node and the
   Registering Node.  If not, then the 6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR) that
   serves the LLN proxies the registration to the 6BBR.  In that case,
   the 6LN is the Registered Node and the 6LBR is the Registering Node.
   The 6BBR performs IPv6 ND operations on its backbone interface on
   behalf of the 6LNs that have Registered Addresses on its LLN
   interfaces, without the need of a broadcast over the wireless medium.

   A Registering Node that resides on the backbone does not register to
   the SNMA groups associated to its Registered Addresses and defers to
   the 6BBR to answer or preferably forward the corresponding multicast
   packets to it as unicast.

2.  Terminology

2.1.  Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.2.  New Terms

   This document introduces the following terminology:

   Federated:  A subnet that comprises a backbone, and one or more
      (wireless) access links, is said to be federated into one MLSN.
      The ND proxy operation of 6BBRs over the backbone extends IPv6 ND
      operation over the access links.

   Sleep Proxy:  A 6BBR acts as a Sleep Proxy if it answers IPv6 ND NSs
      over the backbone on behalf of the Registering Node that is in a
      sleep state and that cannot answer in due time.

   Routing Proxy:  A Routing Proxy provides IPv6 ND proxy functions and
      enables the MLSN operation over federated links that may not be
      compatible for bridging.  The Routing Proxy advertises its own
      link-layer address as the Target Link-Layer Address (TLLA) in the
      proxied Neighbor Advertisements (NAs) over the backbone and routes
      at the network layer between the federated links.

   Bridging Proxy:  A Bridging Proxy provides IPv6 ND proxy functions
      while preserving forwarding continuity at the link layer.  In that
      case, the link-layer address and the mobility of the Registering
      Node is visible across the bridged backbone.  The Bridging Proxy
      advertises the link-layer address of the Registering Node in the
      TLLAO in the proxied NAs over the backbone, and it proxies ND for
      all unicast addresses including link-local addresses.  Instead of
      replying on behalf of the Registering Node, a Bridging Proxy will
      preferably forward the NS(Lookup) and Neighbor Unreachability
      Detection (NUD) messages that target the Registered Address to the
      Registering Node as unicast frames, so it can respond in its own.

   Binding Table:  The Binding Table is an abstract database that is
      maintained by the 6BBR to store the state associated with its
      registrations.

   Binding:  A Binding is an abstract state associated to one
      registration; in other words, it's associated to one entry in the
      Binding Table.

2.3.  Abbreviations

   This document uses the following abbreviations:

   6BBR:       6LoWPAN Backbone Router
   6LBR:       6LoWPAN Border Router
   6LN:        6LoWPAN Node
   6LR:        6LoWPAN Router
   AP:         Access Point
   ARO:        Address Registration Option
   DAC:        Duplicate Address Confirmation
   DAD:        Duplicate Address Detection
   DAR:        Duplicate Address Request
   DODAG:      Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph
   EARO:       Extended Address Registration Option
   EDAC:       Extended Duplicate Address Confirmation
   EDAR:       Extended Duplicate Address Request
   ESS:        Extended Service Set
   LLA:        Link-Layer Address
   LLN:        Low-Power and Lossy Network
   MLSN:       Multi-Link Subnet
   MTU:        Maximum Transmission Unit
   NA:         Neighbor Advertisement
   NCE:        Neighbor Cache Entry
   ND:         Neighbor Discovery
   NS:         Neighbor Solicitation
   NUD:        Neighbor Unreachability Detection
   ODAD:       Optimistic DAD
   RA:         Router Advertisement
   ROVR:       Registration Ownership Verifier
   RPL:        Routing Protocol for LLNs
   RS:         Router Solicitation
   SLLAO:      Source Link-Layer Address Option
   SNMA:       Solicited-Node Multicast Address
   STA:        Station
   TID:        Transaction ID
   TLLAO:      Target Link-Layer Address Option

2.4.  Background

   In this document, readers will encounter terms and concepts that are
   discussed in the following documents:

   Classical IPv6 ND:  "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)"
      [RFC4861], "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862],
      and "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6"
      [RFC4429];

   IPv6 ND over multiple links:  "Neighbor Discovery Proxies (ND Proxy)"
      [RFC4389] and "Multi-Link Subnet Issues" [RFC4903];

   6LoWPAN:  "Problem Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
      Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing" [RFC6606]; and

   6LoWPAN ND:  Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
      Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs) [RFC6775],
      "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal
      Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery" [RFC8505], and
      "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and Lossy
      Networks" [RFC8928].

3.  Overview

   This section and its subsections present a non-normative high-level
   view of the operation of the 6BBR.  The following sections cover the
   normative part.

   Figure 1 illustrates a Backbone Link that federates a collection of
   LLNs as a single IPv6 subnet, with a number of 6BBRs providing ND
   proxy services to their attached LLNs.

                    |
                 +-----+               +-----+       +-----+ IPv6
       (default) |     |    (optional) |     |       |     | Node
          Router |     |          6LBR |     |       |     | or
                 +-----+               +-----+       +-----+ 6LN
                    |  Backbone Side      |             |
        ----+-------+-----------------+---+-------------+----+-----
            |                         |                      |
         +------+                 +------+                +------+
         | 6BBR |                 | 6BBR |                | 6BBR |
         |      |                 |      |                |      |
         +------+                 +------+                +------+
            o     Wireless Side   o   o  o      o           o o
        o o   o  o  o   o  o  o o   o  o  o   o o  o  o  o o     o   o
       o  o o  o o   o o  o   o   o  o  o  o       o     o  o  o o o
       o   o  o  o  o  o   o  o  o  LLN  o   o  o  o  o   o   o  o   o
         o   o o   o   o   o  o     o  o    o      o     o     o o
        o     o                o

                Figure 1: Backbone Link and Backbone Routers

   The LLN may be a hub-and-spoke access link such as (Low-Power) IEEE
   Std 802.11 (Wi-Fi) [IEEEstd80211] and IEEE Std 802.15.1 (Bluetooth)
   [IEEEstd802151] or a mesh-under or a route-over network [RFC8505].
   The proxy state can be distributed across multiple 6BBRs attached to
   the same backbone.

   The main features of a 6BBR are as follows:

   *  MLSN functions (provided by the 6BBR on the backbone) performed on
      behalf of Registered Nodes

   *  Routing Registrar services that reduce multicast within the LLN:

         - Binding Table management
         - failover, e.g., due to mobility

   Each Backbone Router (6BBR) maintains a data structure for its
   Registered Addresses called a Binding Table.  The abstract data that
   is stored in the Binding Table includes the Registered Address;
   anchor information on the Registering Node such as the connecting
   interface, link-local address, and link-layer address (LLA) of the
   Registering Node on that interface; the EARO including ROVR and TID;
   a state that can be either Reachable, Tentative, or Stale; and other
   information such as a trust level that may be configured, e.g., to
   protect a server.  The combined Binding Tables of all the 6BBRs on a
   backbone form a distributed database of Registered Nodes that reside
   in the LLNs or on the IPv6 Backbone.

   Unless otherwise configured, a 6BBR does the following:

   *  Creates a new entry in a Binding Table for a newly Registered
      Address and ensures that the address is not duplicated over the
      backbone.

   *  Advertises a Registered Address over the backbone using an NA
      message as either unsolicited or a response to an NS message.
      This includes joining the multicast group associated to the SNMA
      derived from the Registered Address, as specified in Section 7.2.1
      of [RFC4861], over the backbone.

   *  The 6BBR MAY respond immediately as a proxy in lieu of the
      Registering Node, e.g., if the Registering Node has a sleep cycle
      that the 6BBR does not want to interrupt or if the 6BBR has a
      recent state that is deemed fresh enough to permit the proxied
      response.  It is preferred, though, that the 6BBR checks whether
      the Registering Node is still responsive on the Registered
      Address.  To that effect:

      - as a Bridging Proxy:
         the 6BBR forwards the multicast DAD and address lookup messages
         as a unicast link-layer frame to the link-layer address of the
         Registering Node that matches the target in the ND message; the
         Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) message is unicast and
         is forwarded as is.  In all cases, the goal is to let the
         Registering Node answer with the ND Message and options that it
         sees fit.
      - as a Routing Proxy:
         the 6BBR checks the liveliness of the Registering Node, e.g.,
         using a NUD verification, before answering on its behalf.

   *  Delivers packets arriving from the LLN, using Neighbor
      Solicitation messages to look up the destination over the
      backbone.

   *  Forwards or bridges packets between the LLN and the backbone.

   *  Verifies liveness for a registration, when needed.

   The first of these functions enables the 6BBR to fulfill its role as
   a Routing Registrar for each of its attached LLNs.  The remaining
   functions fulfill the role of the 6BBRs as the border routers that
   federate the Multi-Link IPv6 Subnet.

   The operation of IPv6 ND and ND proxy are not mutually exclusive on
   the backbone, meaning that nodes attached to the backbone and using
   IPv6 ND can transparently interact with 6LNs that rely on a 6BBR to
   ND proxy for them, whether the 6LNs are reachable over an LLN or
   directly attached to the backbone.

   The registration mechanism [RFC8505] used to learn addresses to be
   proxied may coexist in a 6BBR with a proprietary snooping or the
   traditional bridging functionality of an AP, in order to support
   legacy LLN nodes that do not support this specification.

   The registration to a proxy service uses an NS/NA exchange with EARO.
   The 6BBR operation resembles that of a Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275]
   Home Agent (HA).  The combination of a 6BBR and a MIPv6 HA enables
   full mobility support for 6LNs, inside and outside the links that
   form the subnet.

   6BBRs perform IPv6 ND functions over the backbone as follows:

   *  The EARO [RFC8505] is used in IPv6 ND exchanges over the backbone
      between the 6BBRs to help distinguish duplication from movement.
      Extended Duplicate Address Messages (EDAR and EDAC) may also be
      used to communicate with a 6LBR, if one is present.  Address
      duplication is detected using the ROVR field.  Conflicting
      registrations to different 6BBRs for the same Registered Address
      are resolved using the TID field, which forms an order of
      registrations.

   *  The LLA that the 6BBR advertises for the Registered Address on
      behalf of the Registered Node over the backbone can belong to the
      Registering Node; in that case, the 6BBR (acting as a Bridging
      Proxy (see Section 8)) bridges the unicast packets.
      Alternatively, the LLA can be that of the 6BBR on the backbone
      interface, in which case, the 6BBR (acting as a Routing Proxy (see
      Section 7)) receives the unicast packets at Layer 3 and routes
      over.

3.1.  Updating RFCs 6775 and 8505

   This specification adds the EARO as a possible option in RS, NS(DAD),
   and NA messages over the backbone.  This document specifies the use
   of those ND messages by 6BBRs over the backbone, at a high level in
   Section 6 and in more detail in Section 9.

      |  Note: [RFC8505] requires that the registration NS(EARO) contain
      |  a Source Link-Layer Address Option (SLLAO).  [RFC4862] requires
      |  that the NS(DAD) be sent from the unspecified address for which
      |  there cannot be an SLLAO.  Consequently, an NS(DAD) cannot be
      |  confused with a registration.

   This specification allows the deployment of a 6LBR on the backbone
   where EDAR and EDAC messages coexist with classical ND.  It also adds
   the capability to insert IPv6 ND options in the EDAR and EDAC
   messages.  A 6BBR acting as a 6LR for the Registered Address can
   insert an SLLAO in the EDAR to the 6LBR in order to avoid causing a
   multicast NS(lookup) back.  This enables the 6LBR to store the link-
   layer address associated with the Registered Address on a link and to
   serve as a mapping server as described in [UNICAST-LOOKUP].

   This specification allows an address to be registered to more than
   one 6BBR.  Consequently, a 6LBR that is deployed on the backbone MUST
   be capable of maintaining state for each of the 6BBRs that have
   registered with the same TID and same ROVR.

3.2.  Access Link

   The simplest MLSN topology from the Layer 3 perspective occurs when
   the wireless network appears as a single-hop hub-and-spoke network as
   shown in Figure 2.  The Layer 2 operation may effectively be hub-and-
   spoke (e.g., Wi-Fi) or mesh-under, with a Layer 2 protocol handling
   the complex topology.

                    |
                 +-----+               +-----+       +-----+ IPv6
       (default) |     |    (optional) |     |       |     | Node
          Router |     |          6LBR |     |       |     | or
                 +-----+               +-----+       +-----+ 6LN
                    |  Backbone Side      |             |
        ----+-------+-----------------+---+-------------+----+-----
            |                         |                      |
         +------+                 +------+                +------+
         | 6BBR |                 | 6BBR |                | 6BBR |
         | 6LR  |                 | 6LR  |                | 6LR  |
         +------+                 +------+                +------+
      (6LN) (6LN) (6LN)       (6LN) (6LN) (6LN)          (6LN) (6LN)

                       Figure 2: Access Link Use Case

   Figure 3 illustrates a flow where 6LN forms an IPv6 address and
   registers it to a 6BBR acting as a 6LR [RFC8505].  The 6BBR applies
   Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (ODAD) (see Section 3.6) to
   the Registered Address to enable connectivity while the message flow
   is still in progress.

          6LN(STA)         6BBR(AP)          6LBR          default GW
            |                 |                |                   |
            | LLN Access Link |  IPv6 Backbone  (e.g., Ethernet)   |
            |                 |                |                   |
            |  RS(multicast)  |                |                   |
            |---------------->|                |                   |
            | RA(PIO, Unicast)|                |                   |
            |<----------------|                |                   |
            |   NS(EARO)      |                |                   |
            |---------------->|                |                   |
            |                 |  Extended DAR  |                   |
            |                 |--------------->|                   |
            |                 |  Extended DAC  |                   |
            |                 |<---------------|                   |
            |                 |                                    |
            |                 |     NS-DAD(EARO, multicast)        |
            |                 |-------->                           |
            |                 |----------------------------------->|
            |                 |                                    |
            |                 |      RS(no SLLAO, for ODAD)        |
            |                 |----------------------------------->|
            |                 | if (no fresher Binding) NS(Lookup) |
            |                 |                   <----------------|
            |                 |<-----------------------------------|
            |                 |      NA(SLLAO, not(O), EARO)       |
            |                 |----------------------------------->|
            |                 |           RA(unicast)              |
            |                 |<-----------------------------------|
            |                 |                                    |
            |           IPv6 Packets in Optimistic Mode            |
            |<---------------------------------------------------->|
            |                 |                                    |
            |                 |
            |  NA(EARO)       |<DAD timeout>
            |<----------------|
            |                 |

     Figure 3: Initial Registration Flow to a 6BBR Acting as a Routing
                                   Proxy

   In this example, a 6LBR is deployed on the Backbone Link to serve the
   whole subnet, and EDAR/EDAC messages are used in combination with DAD
   to enable coexistence with IPv6 ND over the backbone.

   The RS sent initially by the 6LN (e.g., a Wi-Fi STA) is transmitted
   as a multicast, but since it is intercepted by the 6BBR, it is never
   effectively broadcast.  The multiple arrows associated to the ND
   messages on the backbone denote a real Layer 2 broadcast.

3.3.  Route-Over Mesh

   A more complex MLSN topology occurs when the wireless network appears
   as a Layer 3 mesh network as shown in Figure 4.  A so-called route-
   over routing protocol exposes routes between 6LRs towards both 6LRs
   and 6LNs, and a 6LBR acts as the Root of the Layer 3 mesh network and
   proxy-registers the LLN addresses to the 6BBR.

                    |
                 +-----+               +-----+       +-----+ IPv6
       (default) |     |    (optional) |     |       |     | Node
          Router |     |          6LBR |     |       |     | or
                 +-----+               +-----+       +-----+ 6LN
                    |  Backbone Side      |             |
        ----+-------+-----------------+---+-------------+----+-----
            |                         |                      |
         +------+                 +------+                +------+
         | 6BBR |                 | 6BBR |                | 6BBR |
         +------+                 +------+                +------+
             |                        |                       |
         +------+                 +------+                +------+
         | 6LBR |                 | 6LBR |                | 6LBR |
         +------+                 +------+                +------+
        (6LN) (6LR) (6LN)       (6LR) (6LN) (6LR)      (6LR) (6LR)(6LN)
     (6LN)(6LR) (6LR) (6LN)   (6LN) (6LR)(6LN) (6LR)  (6LR)  (6LR) (6LN)
       (6LR)(6LR) (6LR)         (6LR)  (6LR)(6LN)    (6LR) (6LR)(6LR)
     (6LR)  (6LR)    (6LR)   (6LR) (6LN)(6LR) (6LR)    (6LR) (6LR) (6LR)
     (6LN) (6LN)(6LN) (6LN) (6LN)       (6LN) (6LN)  (6LN)  (6LN) (6LN)

                     Figure 4: Route-Over Mesh Use Case

   Figure 5 illustrates IPv6 signaling that enables a 6LN (the
   Registered Node) to form a Global or a Unique Local Address and
   register it to the 6LBR that serves its LLN using [RFC8505] and a
   neighboring 6LR as relay.  The 6LBR (the Registering Node) then
   proxies the registration [RFC8505] to the 6BBR to obtain ND proxy
   services from the 6BBR.

   The RS sent initially by the 6LN is transmitted as a multicast and
   contained within 1-hop broadcast range where hopefully a 6LR is
   found.  The 6LR is expected to be already connected to the LLN and
   capable of reaching the 6LBR, which is possibly multiple hops away,
   using unicast messages.

       6LoWPAN Node        6LR             6LBR            6BBR
       (mesh leaf)     (mesh router)   (mesh root)
            |               |               |               |
            |  6LoWPAN ND   |6LoWPAN ND     | 6LoWPAN ND    | IPv6 ND
            |   LLN Link    |Route-Over Mesh|Ethernet/Serial| Backbone
            |               |               |/Internal Call |
            |  IPv6 ND RS   |               |               |
            |-------------->|               |               |
            |----------->   |               |               |
            |------------------>            |               |
            |  IPv6 ND RA   |               |               |
            |<--------------|               |               |
            |               |               |               |
            |  NS(EARO)     |               |               |
            |-------------->|               |               |
            | 6LoWPAN ND    | Extended DAR  |               |
            |               |-------------->|               |
            |               |               |  NS(EARO)     |
            |               |               |-------------->|
            |               |               |  (proxied)    | NS-DAD
            |               |               |               |------>
            |               |               |               | (EARO)
            |               |               |               |
            |               |               |  NA(EARO)     |<timeout>
            |               |               |<--------------|
            |               | Extended DAC  |               |
            |               |<--------------|               |
            |  NA(EARO)     |               |               |
            |<--------------|               |               |
            |               |               |               |

          Figure 5: Initial Registration Flow over Route-Over Mesh

   As a non-normative example of a route-over mesh, the IPv6 over the
   TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e (6TiSCH) architecture [6TiSCH] suggests
   using the RPL [RFC6550] and collocating the RPL root with a 6LBR that
   serves the LLN.  The 6LBR is also either collocated with or directly
   connected to the 6BBR over an IPv6 link.

3.4.  The Binding Table

   Addresses in an LLN that are reachable from the backbone by way of
   the 6BBR function must be registered to that 6BBR, using an NS(EARO)
   with the R flag set [RFC8505].  The 6BBR answers with an NA(EARO) and
   maintains a state for the registration in an abstract Binding Table.

   An entry in the Binding Table is called a "Binding".  A Binding may
   be in Tentative, Reachable, or Stale state.

   The 6BBR uses a combination of [RFC8505] and IPv6 ND over the
   backbone to advertise the registration and avoid a duplication.
   Conflicting registrations are solved by the 6BBRs transparently to
   the Registering Nodes.

   Only one 6LN may register a given address, but the address may be
   registered to multiple 6BBRs for higher availability.

   Over the LLN, Binding Table management is as follows:

   *  De-registrations (newer TID, same ROVR, null Lifetime) are
      accepted with a status code of 4 ("Removed"); the entry is
      deleted.

   *  Newer registrations (newer TID, same ROVR, non-null Lifetime) are
      accepted with a status code of 0 ("Success"); the Binding is
      updated with the new TID, the Registration Lifetime, and the
      Registering Node.  In Tentative state, the EDAC response is held
      and may be overwritten; in other states, the Registration Lifetime
      timer is restarted, and the entry is placed in Reachable state.

   *  Identical registrations (same TID, same ROVR) from the same
      Registering Node are accepted with a status code of 0 ("Success").
      In Tentative state, the response is held and may be overwritten,
      but the response is eventually produced, carrying the result of
      the DAD process.

   *  Older registrations (older TID, same ROVR) from the same
      Registering Node are discarded.

   *  Identical and older registrations (not-newer TID, same ROVR) from
      a different Registering Node are rejected with a status code of 3
      ("Moved"); this may be rate-limited to avoid undue interference.

   *  Any registration for the same address but with a different ROVR is
      rejected with a status code of 1 ("Duplicate Address").

   The operation of the Binding Table is specified in detail in
   Section 9.

3.5.  Primary and Secondary 6BBRs

   A Registering Node MAY register the same address to more than one
   6BBR, in which case, the Registering Node uses the same EARO in all
   the parallel registrations.  On the other hand, there is no provision
   in 6LoWPAN ND for a 6LN (acting as Registered Node) to select its
   6LBR (acting as Registering Node), so it cannot select more than one
   either.  To allow for this, NS(DAD) and NA messages with an EARO
   received over the backbone that indicate an identical Binding in
   another 6BBR (same Registered Address, same TID, same ROVR) are
   silently ignored except for the purpose of selecting the primary 6BBR
   for that registration.

   A 6BBR may be either primary or secondary.  The primary is the 6BBR
   that has the highest 64-bit Extended Unique Identifier (EUI-64)
   address of all the 6BBRs that share a registration for the same
   Registered Address, with the same ROVR and same Transaction ID, and
   the EUI-64 address is considered an unsigned 64-bit integer.  A given
   6BBR can be primary for a given address and secondary for another
   address, regardless of whether or not the addresses belong to the
   same 6LN.

   In the following sections, it is expected that an NA will be sent
   over the backbone only if the node is primary or does not support the
   concept of primary.  More than one 6BBR claiming or defending an
   address generates unwanted traffic, but there is no reachability
   issue since all 6BBRs provide reachability from the backbone to the
   6LN.

   If a Registering Node loses connectivity to its 6BBR or one of the
   6BBRs to which it registered an address, it retries the registration
   to the (one or more) available 6BBR(s).  When doing that, the
   Registering Node MUST increment the TID in order to force the
   migration of the state to the new 6BBR and the reselection of the
   primary 6BBR if it is the node that was lost.

3.6.  Using Optimistic DAD

   ODAD [RFC4429] specifies how an IPv6 address can be used before
   completion of DAD.  ODAD guarantees that this behavior will not cause
   harm if the new address is a duplicate.

   Support for ODAD avoids delays in installing the Neighbor Cache Entry
   (NCE) in the 6BBRs and the default router, enabling immediate
   connectivity to the Registered Node.  As shown in Figure 3, if the
   6BBR is aware of the LLA of a router, then the 6BBR sends a Router
   Solicitation (RS), using the Registered Address as the IP Source
   Address, to the known router(s).  The RS is sent without an SLLAO, to
   avoid invalidating a preexisting NCE in the router.

   Following ODAD, the router may then send a unicast RA to the
   Registered Address, and it may resolve that address using an
   NS(Lookup) message.  In response, the 6BBR sends an NA with an EARO
   and the Override flag [RFC4861] that is not set.  The router can then
   determine the freshest EARO in case of conflicting NA(EARO) messages,
   using the method described in Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8505].  If the
   NA(EARO) is the freshest answer, the default router creates a Binding
   with the SLLAO of the 6BBR (in Routing Proxy mode) or that of the
   Registering Node (in Bridging Proxy mode), so traffic from/to the
   Registered Address can flow immediately.

4.  Multi-Link Subnet Considerations

   The backbone and the federated LLN links are considered to be
   different links in the MLSN, even if multiple LLNs are attached to
   the same 6BBR.  ND messages are link-scoped and are not forwarded by
   the 6BBR between the backbone and the LLNs, though some packets may
   be reinjected in Bridging Proxy mode (see Section 8).

   Legacy nodes located on the backbone expect that the subnet is
   deployed within a single link and that there is a common Maximum
   Transmission Unit (MTU) for intra-subnet communication: the Link MTU.
   They will not perform the IPv6 Path MTU Discovery [RFC8201] for a
   destination within the subnet.  For that reason, the MTU MUST have
   the same value on the backbone and on all federated LLNs in the MLSN.
   As a consequence, the 6BBR MUST use the same MTU value in RAs over
   the backbone and in the RAs that it transmits toward the LLN links.

5.  Optional 6LBR Serving the Multi-Link Subnet

   A 6LBR can be deployed to serve the whole MLSN as shown in Figure 4.
   It may be attached to the backbone, in which case it can be
   discovered by its capability advertisement (see Section 4.3 of
   [RFC8505]) in RA messages.

   When a 6LBR is present, the 6BBR uses an EDAR/EDAC message exchange
   with the 6LBR to check if the new registration corresponds to a
   duplication or a movement.  This is done prior to the NS(DAD)
   process, which may be avoided if the 6LBR already maintains a
   conflicting state for the Registered Address.

   If this registration is a duplicate or not the freshest, then the
   6LBR replies with an EDAC message with a status code of 1 ("Duplicate
   Address") or 3 ("Moved"), respectively.  If this registration is the
   freshest, then the 6LBR replies with a status code of 0 ("Success").
   In that case, if this registration is fresher than an existing
   registration for another 6BBR, then the 6LBR also sends an
   asynchronous EDAC with a status code of 4 ("Removed") to the older
   6BBR.

   The EDAR message SHOULD carry the SLLAO used in NS messages by the
   6BBR for that Binding, and the EDAC message SHOULD carry the Target
   Link-Layer Address Option (TLLAO) associated with the currently
   accepted registration.  This enables a 6BBR to locate the new
   position of a mobile 6LN in the case of a Routing Proxy operation and
   opens the capability for the 6LBR to serve as a mapping server in the
   future.

   Note that if link-local addresses are registered, then the scope of
   uniqueness on which the address duplication is checked is the total
   collection of links that the 6LBR serves, as opposed to the sole link
   on which the link-local address is assigned.

6.  Using IPv6 ND over the Backbone Link

   On the backbone side, the 6BBR MUST join the SNMA group corresponding
   to a Registered Address as soon as it creates a Binding for that
   address and maintain that SNMA membership as long as it maintains the
   registration.  The 6BBR uses either the SNMA or plain unicast to
   defend the Registered Addresses in its Binding Table over the
   backbone (as specified in [RFC4862]).  The 6BBR advertises and
   defends the Registered Addresses over the Backbone Link using RS,
   NS(DAD), and NA messages with the Registered Address as the Source or
   Target Address.

   The 6BBR MUST place an EARO in the IPv6 ND messages that it generates
   on behalf of the Registered Node.  Note that an NS(DAD) does not
   contain an SLLAO and cannot be confused with a proxy registration
   such as performed by a 6LBR.

   IPv6 ND operates as follows on the backbone:

   *  Section 7.2.8 of [RFC4861] specifies that an NA message generated
      as a proxy does not have the Override flag set in order to ensure
      that if the real owner is present on the link, its own NA will
      take precedence, and this NA does not update the NCE for the real
      owner if one exists.

   *  A node that receives multiple NA messages updates an existing NCE
      only if the Override flag is set; otherwise, the node will probe
      the cached address.

   *  When an NS(DAD) is received for a tentative address, which means
      that two nodes form the same address at nearly the same time, the
      node that first claimed the address cannot be detected per
      Section 5.4.3 of [RFC4862], and the address is abandoned.

   *  In any case, [RFC4862] indicates that a node never responds to a
      Neighbor Solicitation for a tentative address.

   This specification adds information about proxied addresses that
   helps to sort out a duplication (different ROVR) from a movement
   (same ROVR, different TID); in the latter case, the older
   registration is sorted out from the fresher one (by comparing TIDs).

   When a Registering Node moves from one 6BBR to the next, the 6BBRs
   send NA messages over the backbone to update existing NCEs.  A node
   that receives multiple NA messages with an EARO option and the same
   ROVR MUST favor the NA with the freshest EARO over the others.

   The new 6BBR MAY set the Override flag in the NA messages if it does
   not compete with the Registering Node for the NCE in backbone nodes.
   This is assured if the Registering Node is attached via an interface
   that cannot be bridged onto the backbone, making it impossible for
   the Registering Node to defend its own addresses there.  This may
   also be signaled by the Registering Node through a protocol extension
   that is not in scope for this specification.

   When the Binding is in Tentative state, the 6BBR acts as follows:

   *  an NS(DAD) that indicates a duplication can still not be asserted
      for first come, but the situation can be avoided using a 6LBR on
      the backbone that will serialize the order of appearance of the
      address and ensure first-come, first-served.

   *  an NS or an NA that denotes an older registration for the same
      Registered Node is not interpreted as a duplication as specified
      in Sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 of [RFC4862], respectively.

   When the Binding is no longer in Tentative state, the 6BBR acts as
   follows:

   *  an NS or an NA with an EARO that denotes a duplicate registration
      (different ROVR) is answered with an NA message that carries an
      EARO with a status code of 1 ("Duplicate Address"), unless the
      received message is an NA that carries an EARO with a status code
      of 1 ("Duplicate Address").

   In any state, the 6BBR acts as follows:

   *  an NS or an NA with an EARO that denotes an older registration
      (same ROVR) is answered with an NA message that carries an EARO
      with a status code of 3 ("Moved") to ensure that the Stale state
      is removed rapidly.

   This behavior is specified in more detail in Section 9.

   This specification enables proxy operation for the IPv6 ND resolution
   of LLN devices, and a prefix that is used across an MLSN MAY be
   advertised as on-link over the backbone.  This is done for backward
   compatibility with existing IPv6 hosts by setting the L flag in the
   Prefix Information Option (PIO) of RA messages [RFC4861].

   For movement involving a slow reattachment, the NUD procedure defined
   in [RFC4861] may timeout too quickly.  Nodes on the backbone SHOULD
   support [RFC7048] whenever possible.

7.  Routing Proxy Operations

   A Routing Proxy provides IPv6 ND proxy functions for Global and
   Unique Local Addresses between the LLN and the backbone, but not for
   link-local addresses.  It operates as an IPv6 border router and
   provides a full link-layer isolation.

   In this mode, it is not required that the link-layer addresses of the
   6LNs be visible at Layer 2 over the backbone.  Thus, it is useful
   when the messaging over the backbone that is associated with wireless
   mobility becomes expensive, e.g., when the Layer 2 topology is
   virtualized over a wide area IP underlay.

   This mode is definitely required when the LLN uses a link-layer
   address format that is different from that on the backbone (e.g.,
   EUI-64 versus EUI-48).  Since a 6LN may not be able to resolve an
   arbitrary destination in the MLSN directly, a prefix that is used
   across a MLSN MUST NOT be advertised as on-link in RA messages sent
   towards the LLN.

   In order to maintain IP connectivity, the 6BBR installs a connected
   host route to the Registered Address on the LLN interface, via the
   Registering Node as identified by the source address and the SLLAO in
   the NS(EARO) messages.

   When operating as a Routing Proxy, the 6BBR MUST use its Layer 2
   address on its backbone interface in the SLLAO of the RS messages and
   the TLLAO of the NA messages that it generates to advertise the
   Registered Addresses.

   For each Registered Address, multiple peers on the backbone may have
   resolved the address with the 6BBR link-layer address, maintaining
   that mapping in their Neighbor Cache.  The 6BBR SHOULD maintain a
   list of the peers on the backbone that have associated its link-layer
   address with the Registered Address.  If that Registered Address
   moves to another 6BBR, the previous 6BBR SHOULD unicast a gratuitous
   NA to each such peer, to supply the LLA of the new 6BBR in the TLLAO
   for the address.  A 6BBR that does not maintain this list MAY
   multicast a gratuitous NA message; this NA will possibly hit all the
   nodes on the backbone, whether or not they maintain an NCE for the
   Registered Address.  In either case, the 6BBR MAY set the Override
   flag if it is known that the Registered Node cannot attach to the
   backbone; this will avoid interruptions and save probing flows in the
   future.

   If a correspondent fails to receive the gratuitous NA, it will keep
   sending traffic to a 6BBR to which the node was previously
   registered.  Since the previous 6BBR removed its host route to the
   Registered Address, it will look up the address over the backbone,
   resolve the address with the LLA of the new 6BBR, and forward the
   packet to the correct 6BBR.  The previous 6BBR SHOULD also issue a
   redirect message [RFC4861] to update the cache of the correspondent.

8.  Bridging Proxy Operations

   A Bridging Proxy provides IPv6 ND proxy functions between the LLN and
   the backbone while preserving the forwarding continuity at the link
   layer.  It acts as a Layer 2 bridge for all types of unicast packets
   including link-scoped, and it appears as an IPv6 Host on the
   backbone.

   The Bridging Proxy registers any Binding, including a link-local
   address to the 6LBR (if present), and defends it over the backbone in
   IPv6 ND procedures.

   To achieve this, the Bridging Proxy intercepts the IPv6 ND messages
   and may reinject them on the other side, respond directly, or drop
   them.  For instance, an NS(Lookup) from the backbone that matches a
   Binding can be responded to directly or turned into a unicast on the
   LLN side to let the 6LN respond.

   As a Bridging Proxy, the 6BBR MUST use the Registering Node's Layer 2
   address in the SLLAO of the NS/RS messages and the TLLAO of the NA
   messages that it generates to advertise the Registered Addresses.
   The Registering Node's Layer 2 address is found in the SLLAO of the
   registration NS(EARO) and maintained in the Binding Table.

   The MLSN prefix SHOULD NOT be advertised as on-link in RA messages
   sent towards the LLN.  If a destination address is seen as on-link,
   then a 6LN may use NS(Lookup) messages to resolve that address.  In
   that case, the 6BBR MUST either answer the NS(Lookup) message
   directly or reinject the message on the backbone, as either a Layer 2
   unicast or a multicast.

   If the Registering Node owns the Registered Address, meaning that the
   Registering Node is the Registered Node, then its mobility does not
   impact existing NCEs over the backbone.  In a network where proxy
   registrations are used, meaning that the Registering Node acts on
   behalf of the Registered Node, if the Registered Node selects a new
   Registering Node, then the existing NCEs across the backbone pointing
   at the old Registering Node must be updated.  In that case, the 6BBR
   SHOULD attempt to fix the existing NCEs across the backbone pointing
   at other 6BBRs using NA messages as described in Section 7.

   This method can fail if the multicast message is not received; one or
   more correspondent nodes on the backbone might maintain a stale NCE,
   and packets to the Registered Address may be lost.  When this
   condition happens, it is eventually discovered and resolved using NUD
   as defined in [RFC4861].

9.  Creating and Maintaining a Binding

   Upon receiving a registration for a new address (i.e., an NS(EARO)
   with the R flag set), the 6BBR creates a Binding and operates as a
   6LR according to [RFC8505], interacting with the 6LBR if one is
   present.

   An implementation of a Routing Proxy that creates a Binding MUST also
   create an associated host route pointing to the Registering Node in
   the LLN interface from which the registration was received.

   Acting as a 6BBR, the 6LR operation is modified as follows:

   *  Acting as a Bridging Proxy, the 6LR MUST ND proxy over the
      backbone for registered link-local addresses.

   *  EDAR and EDAC messages SHOULD carry an SLLAO and a TLLAO,
      respectively.

   *  An EDAC message with a status code of 9 ("6LBR Registry
      Saturated") is assimilated as a status code of 0 ("Success") if a
      following DAD process protects the address against duplication.

   This specification enables nodes on a Backbone Link to coexist along
   with nodes implementing IPv6 ND [RFC4861] as well as other non-
   normative specifications such as [SAVI-WLAN].  It is possible that
   not all IPv6 addresses on the backbone are registered and known to
   the 6LBR, and an EDAR/EDAC exchange with the 6LBR might succeed even
   for a duplicate address.  Consequently, the 6BBR still needs to
   perform IPv6 ND DAD over the backbone after an EDAC with a status
   code of 0 ("Success") or 9 ("6LBR Registry Saturated").

   For the DAD operation, the Binding is placed in Tentative state for a
   duration of TENTATIVE_DURATION (Section 12), and an NS(DAD) message
   is sent as a multicast message over the backbone to the SNMA
   associated with the Registered Address [RFC4862].  The EARO from the
   registration MUST be placed unchanged in the NS(DAD) message.

   If a registration is received for an existing Binding with a non-null
   Registration Lifetime and the registration is fresher (same ROVR,
   fresher TID), then the Binding is updated with the new Registration
   Lifetime, TID, and possibly Registering Node.  In Tentative state
   (see Section 9.1), the current DAD operation continues unaltered.  In
   other states (see Sections 9.2 and 9.3 ), the Binding is placed in
   Reachable state for the Registration Lifetime, and the 6BBR returns
   an NA(EARO) to the Registering Node with a status code of 0
   ("Success").

   Upon a registration that is identical (same ROVR, TID, and
   Registering Node), the 6BBR does not alter its current state.  In
   Reachable state, it returns an NA(EARO) back to the Registering Node
   with a status code of 0 ("Success").  A registration that is not as
   fresh (same ROVR, older TID) is ignored.

   If a registration is received for an existing Binding and a
   Registration Lifetime of 0, then the Binding is removed, and the 6BBR
   returns an NA(EARO) back to the Registering Node with a status code
   of 0 ("Success").  An implementation of a Routing Proxy that removes
   a Binding MUST remove the associated host route pointing on the
   Registering Node.

   The old 6BBR removes its Binding Table entry and notifies the
   Registering Node with a status code of 3 ("Moved") if a new 6BBR
   claims a fresher registration (same ROVR, fresher TID) for the same
   address.  The old 6BBR MAY preserve a temporary state in order to
   forward packets in flight.  The state may be, for instance, an NCE
   that was formed when an NA message was received.  It may also be a
   Binding Table entry in Stale state, pointing at the new 6BBR on the
   backbone or any other abstract cache entry that can be used to
   resolve the link-layer address of the new 6BBR.  The old 6BBR SHOULD
   also use REDIRECT messages pointing at the new 6BBR to update the
   correspondents of the Registered Address, as specified in [RFC4861].

9.1.  Operations on a Binding in Tentative State

   The Tentative state covers a DAD period over the backbone during
   which an address being registered is checked for duplication using
   the procedures defined in [RFC4862].

   For a Binding in Tentative state:

   *  The Binding MUST be removed if an NA message is received over the
      backbone for the Registered Address with no EARO or with an EARO
      that indicates an existing registration owned by a different
      Registering Node (different ROVR).  In that case, an NA is sent
      back to the Registering Node with a status code of 1 ("Duplicate
      Address") to indicate that the Binding has been rejected.  This
      behavior might be overridden by policy, in particular if the
      registration is trusted, e.g., based on the validation of the ROVR
      field (see [RFC8928]).

   *  The Binding MUST be removed if an NS(DAD) message is received over
      the backbone for the Registered Address with no EARO or with an
      EARO that has a different ROVR that indicates a tentative
      registration by a different Registering Node.  In that case, an NA
      is sent back to the Registering Node with a status code of 1
      ("Duplicate Address").  This behavior might be overridden by
      policy, in particular if the registration is trusted, e.g., based
      on the validation of the ROVR field (see [RFC8928]).

   *  The Binding MUST be removed if an NA or an NS(DAD) message is
      received over the backbone for the Registered Address and contains
      an EARO that indicates a fresher registration [RFC8505] for the
      same Registering Node (same ROVR).  In that case, an NA MUST be
      sent back to the Registering Node with a status code of 3
      ("Moved").

   *  The Binding MUST be kept unchanged if an NA or an NS(DAD) message
      is received over the backbone for the Registered Address and
      contains an EARO that indicates an older registration [RFC8505]
      for the same Registering Node (same ROVR).  The message is
      answered with an NA that carries an EARO with a status code of 3
      ("Moved") and the Override flag not set.  This behavior might be
      overridden by policy, in particular if the registration is not
      trusted.

   *  Other NS(DAD) and NA messages from the backbone are ignored.

   *  NS(Lookup) and NS(NUD) messages SHOULD be optimistically answered
      with an NA message containing an EARO with a status code of 0
      ("Success") and the Override flag not set (see Section 3.6).  If
      optimistic DAD is disabled, then they SHOULD be queued to be
      answered when the Binding goes to Reachable state.

   When the TENTATIVE_DURATION (Section 12) timer elapses, the Binding
   is placed in Reachable state for the Registration Lifetime, and the
   6BBR returns an NA(EARO) to the Registering Node with a status code
   of 0 ("Success").

   The 6BBR also attempts to take over any existing Binding from other
   6BBRs and to update existing NCEs in backbone nodes.  This is done by
   sending an NA message with an EARO and the Override flag not set over
   the backbone (see Sections 7 and 8).

9.2.  Operations on a Binding in Reachable State

   The Reachable state covers an active registration after a successful
   DAD process.

   If the Registration Lifetime is of a long duration, an implementation
   might be configured to reassess the availability of the Registering
   Node at a lower period, using a NUD procedure as specified in
   [RFC7048].  If the NUD procedure fails, the Binding SHOULD be placed
   in Stale state immediately.

   For a Binding in Reachable state:

   *  The Binding MUST be removed if an NA or an NS(DAD) message is
      received over the backbone for the Registered Address and contains
      an EARO that indicates a fresher registration [RFC8505] for the
      same Registered Node (i.e., same ROVR but fresher TID).  A status
      code of 4 ("Removed") is returned in an asynchronous NA(EARO) to
      the Registering Node.  Based on configuration, an implementation
      may delay this operation by a timer with a short setting, e.g., a
      few seconds to a minute, in order to allow for a parallel
      registration to reach this node, in which case the NA might be
      ignored.

   *  NS(DAD) and NA messages containing an EARO that indicates a
      registration for the same Registered Node that is not as fresh as
      this Binding MUST be answered with an NA message containing an
      EARO with a status code of 3 ("Moved").

   *  An NS(DAD) with no EARO or with an EARO that indicates a duplicate
      registration (i.e., different ROVR) MUST be answered with an NA
      message containing an EARO with a status code of 1 ("Duplicate
      Address") and the Override flag not set, unless the received
      message is an NA that carries an EARO with a status code of 1
      ("Duplicate Address"), in which case the node refrains from
      answering.

   *  Other NS(DAD) and NA messages from the backbone are ignored.

   *  NS(Lookup) and NS(NUD) messages SHOULD be answered with an NA
      message containing an EARO with a status code of 0 ("Success") and
      the Override flag not set.  The 6BBR MAY check whether the
      Registering Node is still available using a NUD procedure over the
      LLN prior to answering; this behavior depends on the use case and
      is subject to configuration.

   When the Registration Lifetime timer elapses, the Binding is placed
   in Stale state for a duration of STALE_DURATION (Section 12).

9.3.  Operations on a Binding in Stale State

   The Stale state enables tracking of the backbone peers that have a
   NCE pointing to this 6BBR in case the Registered Address shows up
   later.

   If the Registered Address is claimed by another 6LN on the backbone,
   with an NS(DAD) or an NA, the 6BBR does not defend the address.

   For a Binding in Stale state:

   *  The Binding MUST be removed if an NA or an NS(DAD) message is
      received over the backbone for the Registered Address with no EARO
      or with an EARO that indicates either a fresher registration for
      the same Registered Node or a duplicate registration.  A status
      code of 4 ("Removed") MAY be returned in an asynchronous NA(EARO)
      to the Registering Node.

   *  NS(DAD) and NA messages containing an EARO that indicates a
      registration for the same Registered Node that is not as fresh as
      this MUST be answered with an NA message containing an EARO with a
      status code of 3 ("Moved").

   *  If the 6BBR receives an NS(Lookup) or an NS(NUD) message for the
      Registered Address, the 6BBR MUST attempt a NUD procedure as
      specified in [RFC7048] to the Registering Node, targeting the
      Registered Address, prior to answering.  If the NUD procedure
      succeeds, the operation in Reachable state applies.  If the NUD
      fails, the 6BBR refrains from answering.

   *  Other NS(DAD) and NA messages from the backbone are ignored.

   When the STALE_DURATION (Section 12) timer elapses, the Binding MUST
   be removed.

10.  Registering Node Considerations

   A Registering Node MUST implement [RFC8505] in order to interact with
   a 6BBR (which acts as a Routing Registrar).  Following [RFC8505], the
   Registering Node signals that it requires IPv6 ND proxy services from
   a 6BBR by registering the corresponding IPv6 address using an
   NS(EARO) message with the R flag set.

   The Registering Node may be the 6LN owning the IPv6 address or a 6LBR
   that performs the registration on its behalf in a route-over mesh.

   A 6LN MUST register all of its IPv6 addresses to its 6LR, which is
   the 6BBR when they are connected at Layer 2.  Failure to register an
   address may result in the address being unreachable by other parties.
   This would happen, for instance, if the 6BBR propagates the
   NS(Lookup) from the backbone only to the LLN nodes that do not
   register their addresses.

   The Registering Node MUST refrain from using multicast NS(Lookup)
   when the destination is not known as on-link, e.g., if the prefix is
   advertised in a PIO with the L flag not set.  In that case, the
   Registering Node sends its packets directly to its 6LR.

   The Registering Node SHOULD also follow BCP 202 [RFC7772] in order to
   limit the use of multicast RAs.  It SHOULD also implement "Simple
   Procedures for Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6" [RFC6059] (DNA
   procedures) to detect movements and support "Packet-Loss Resiliency
   for Router Solicitations" [RFC7559] in order to improve reliability
   for the unicast RS messages.

11.  Security Considerations

   The procedures in this document modify the mechanisms used for IPv6
   ND and DAD and should not affect other aspects of IPv6 or higher-
   level-protocol operation.  As such, the main classes of attacks that
   are in play are those that work to block Neighbor Discovery or to
   forcibly claim an address that another node is attempting to use.  In
   the absence of cryptographic protection at higher layers, the latter
   class of attacks can have significant consequences, with the attacker
   being able to read all the "stolen" traffic that was directed to the
   target of the attack.

   This specification applies to LLNs and a backbone in which the
   individual links are protected against rogue access on the LLN by
   authenticating a node that attaches to the network and encrypting the
   transmissions at the link layer and on the backbone side, using the
   physical security and access control measures that are typically
   applied there; thus, packets may neither be forged nor overheard.

   In particular, the LLN link layer is required to provide secure
   unicast to/from the Backbone Router and secure broadcast from the
   routers in a way that prevents tampering with or replaying the ND
   messages.

   For the IPv6 ND operation over the backbone, and unless the classical
   ND is disabled (e.g., by configuration), the classical ND messages
   are interpreted as emitted by the address owner and have precedence
   over the 6BBR that is only a proxy.

   As a result, the security threats that are detailed in Section 11.1
   of [RFC4861] fully apply to this specification as well.  In short:

   *  Any node that can send a packet on the backbone can take over any
      address, including addresses of LLN nodes, by claiming it with an
      NA message and the Override bit set.  This means that the real
      owner will stop receiving its packets.

   *  Any node that can send a packet on the backbone can forge traffic
      and pretend it is issued from an address that it does not own,
      even if it did not claim the address using ND.

   *  Any node that can send a packet on the backbone can present itself
      as a preferred router to intercept all traffic outgoing on the
      subnet.  It may even expose a prefix on the subnet as "not-on-
      link" and intercept all the traffic within the subnet.

   *  If the rogue can receive a packet from the backbone, it can also
      snoop all the intercepted traffic, by stealing an address or the
      role of a router.

   This means that any rogue access to the backbone must be prevented at
   all times, and nodes that are attached to the backbone must be fully
   trusted / never compromised.

   Using address registration as the sole ND mechanism on a link and
   coupling it with [RFC8928] guarantees the ownership of a Registered
   Address within that link.

   *  The protection is based on a proof of ownership encoded in the
      ROVR field, and it protects against address theft and
      impersonation by a 6LN, because the 6LR can challenge the
      Registered Node for a proof of ownership.

   *  The protection extends to the full LLN in the case of an LLN link,
      but it does not extend over the backbone since the 6BBR cannot
      provide the proof of ownership when it defends the address.

   A possible attack over the backbone can be done by sending an NS with
   an EARO and expecting the NA(EARO) back to contain the TID and ROVR
   fields of the existing state.  With that information, the attacker
   can easily increase the TID and take over the Binding.

   If the classical ND is disabled on the backbone and the use of
   [RFC8928] and a 6LBR are mandated, the network will benefit from the
   following new advantages:

   Zero-trust security for ND flows within the whole subnet:  the
      increased security that [RFC8928] provides on the LLN will also
      apply to the backbone; it becomes impossible for an attached node
      to claim an address that belongs to another node using ND, and the
      network can filter packets that are not originated by the owner of
      the source address (Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI)),
      as long as the routers are known and trusted.

   Remote ND DoS attack avoidance:  the complete list of addresses in
      the network will be known to the 6LBR and available to the default
      router; with that information, the router does not need to send a
      multicast NS(Lookup) in case of a Neighbor Cache miss for an
      incoming packet, which is a source of remote DoS attack against
      the network.

   Less IPv6 ND-related multicast on the backbone:  DAD and NS(Lookup)
      become unicast queries to the 6LBR.

   Better DAD operation on wireless:  DAD has been found to fail to
      detect duplications on large Wi-Fi infrastructures due to the
      unreliable broadcast operation on wireless; using a 6LBR enables a
      unicast lookup.

   Less Layer 2 churn on the backbone:  Using the Routing Proxy
      approach, the link-layer address of the LLN devices and their
      mobility are not visible in the backbone; only the link-Layer
      addresses of the 6BBR and backbone nodes are visible at Layer 2 on
      the backbone.  This is mandatory for LLNs that cannot be bridged
      on the backbone and useful in any case to scale down, stabilize
      the forwarding tables at Layer 2, and avoid the gratuitous frames
      that are typically broadcasted to fix the transparent bridging
      tables when a wireless node roams from an AP to the next.

   This specification introduces a 6BBR that is a router on the path of
   the LLN traffic and a 6LBR that is used for the lookup.  They could
   be interesting targets for an attacker.  A compromised 6BBR can
   accept a registration but block the traffic or refrain from proxying.
   A compromised 6LBR may unduly accept the transfer of ownership of an
   address or block a newcomer by faking that its address is a
   duplicate.  But those attacks are possible in a classical network
   from a compromised default router and a DHCP server, respectively,
   and can be prevented using the same methods.

   A possible attack over the LLN can still be done by compromising a
   6LR.  A compromised 6LR may modify the ROVR of EDAR messages in
   flight and transfer the ownership of the Registered Address to itself
   or a tier.  It may also claim that a ROVR was validated when it
   really wasn't and reattribute an address to itself or to an attached
   6LN.  This means that 6LRs, as well as 6LBRs and 6BBRS, must still be
   fully trusted / never compromised.

   This specification mandates checking on the 6LBR on the backbone
   before doing the classical DAD, in case the address already exists.
   This may delay the DAD operation and should be protected by a short
   timer, in the order of 100 ms or less, which will only represent a
   small extra delay versus the 1 s wait of the DAD operation.

12.  Protocol Constants

   This specification uses the following constants:

   TENTATIVE_DURATION:  800 milliseconds

   In LLNs with long-lived addresses such as Low-Power WAN (LPWANs),
   STALE_DURATION SHOULD be configured with a relatively long value to
   cover an interval when the address may be reused and before it is
   safe to expect that the address was definitively released.  A good
   default value is 24 hours.  In LLNs where addresses are renewed
   rapidly, e.g., for privacy reasons, STALE_DURATION SHOULD be
   configured with a relatively shorter value -- 5 minutes by default.

13.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

14.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC4429]  Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
              for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC6059]  Krishnan, S. and G. Daley, "Simple Procedures for
              Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6", RFC 6059,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6059, November 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6059>.

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

   [RFC7048]  Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
              Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7048, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7048>.

   [RFC7559]  Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss
              Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7559, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559>.

   [RFC7772]  Yourtchenko, A. and L. Colitti, "Reducing Energy
              Consumption of Router Advertisements", BCP 202, RFC 7772,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7772, February 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7772>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8201]  McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.

   [RFC8505]  Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
              Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
              Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.

15.  Informative References

   [6TiSCH]   Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-29, 27 August 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-
              architecture-29>.

   [DAD-APPROACHES]
              Nordmark, E., "Possible approaches to make DAD more robust
              and/or efficient", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-nordmark-6man-dad-approaches-02, 19 October 2015,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nordmark-6man-dad-
              approaches-02>.

   [DAD-ISSUES]
              Yourtchenko, A. and E. Nordmark, "A survey of issues
              related to IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-
              issues-01, 3 March 2015, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
              draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues-01>.

   [IEEEstd80211]
              IEEE, "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",
              IEEE 802.11-2012, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2016.7786995,
              December 2016,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7786995>.

   [IEEEstd802151]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology--Local and
              metropolitan area networks--Specific requirements--Part
              15.1a: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
              Layer (PHY) specifications for Wireless Personal Area
              Networks (WPAN)", IEEE 802.15.1-2005,
              DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2005.96290, June 2005,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1490827>.

   [IEEEstd802154]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks--Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
              Networks (LR-WPANs)", IEEE 802.15.4-2011,
              DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2011.6012487, September 2011,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6012487>.

   [IEEEstd8021Q]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2018,
              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403927, July 2018,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8403927>.

   [MCAST-PROBLEMS]
              Perkins, C. E., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and
              J. C. Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802
              Wireless Media", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-12, 26 October 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-
              mcast-problems-12>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4389]  Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
              Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, DOI 10.17487/RFC4389, April
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4389>.

   [RFC4903]  Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4903, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4903>.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

   [RFC5415]  Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
              Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
              (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5415, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5415>.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
              JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.

   [RFC6606]  Kim, E., Kaspar, D., Gomez, C., and C. Bormann, "Problem
              Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing",
              RFC 6606, DOI 10.17487/RFC6606, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6606>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC8273]  Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix
              per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8273>.

   [RFC8928]  Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik,
              "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8928>.

   [RIFT]     Przygienda, T., Sharma, A., Thubert, P., Rijsman, B., and
              D. Afanasiev, "RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rift-rift-12, 26 May
              2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rift-rift-12>.

   [RPL-LEAVES]
              Thubert, P. and M. C. Richardson, "Routing for RPL
              Leaves", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              roll-unaware-leaves-23, 10 November 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-
              leaves-23>.

   [RS-REFRESH]
              Nordmark, E., Yourtchenko, A., and S. Krishnan, "IPv6
              Neighbor Discovery Optional RS/RA Refresh", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-rs-refresh-02,
              31 October 2016, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
              6man-rs-refresh-02>.

   [SAVI-WLAN]
              Bi, J., Wu, J., Wang, Y., and T. Lin, "A SAVI Solution for
              WLAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bi-savi-
              wlan-20, 14 November 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bi-savi-wlan-20>.

   [UNICAST-LOOKUP]
              Thubert, P. and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
              Unicast Lookup", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              thubert-6lo-unicast-lookup-00, 25 January 2019,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lo-unicast-
              lookup-00>.

Appendix A.  Possible Future Extensions

   With the current specification, the 6LBR is not leveraged to avoid
   multicast NS(Lookup) on the backbone.  This could be done by adding a
   lookup procedure in the EDAR/EDAC exchange.

   By default, the specification does not have a fine-grained trust
   model: all nodes that can authenticate to the LLN link layer or
   attach to the backbone are equally trusted.  It would be desirable to
   provide a stronger authorization model, e.g., whereby nodes that
   associate their address with a proof of ownership [RFC8928] should be
   trusted more than nodes that do not.  Such a trust model and related
   signaling could be added in the future to override the default
   operation and favor trusted nodes.

   As an alternate to the ND Proxy operation, the registration may be
   redistributed as a host route in a routing protocol that would
   operate over the backbone; this is already happening in IoT networks
   [RPL-LEAVES] and Data Center Routing [RIFT] and could be extended to
   other protocols, e.g., BGP [RFC4271] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].  The
   registration may also be advertised in an overlay protocol such as
   Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
   (LISP) [RFC6830], or Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432].

Appendix B.  Applicability and Requirements Served

   This document specifies ND proxy functions that can be used to
   federate an IPv6 Backbone Link and multiple IPv6 LLNs into a single
   MLSN.  The ND proxy functions enable IPv6 ND services for DAD and
   address lookup that do not require broadcasts over the LLNs.

   The term LLN is used to cover multiple types of WLANs and WPANs,
   including (Low-Power) Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy, IEEE Std
   802.11ah and IEEE Std 802.15.4 wireless meshes, and the types of
   networks listed in "Requirements Related to Various Low-Power Link
   Types" (see Appendix B.3 of [RFC8505]).

   Each LLN in the subnet is attached to a 6BBR.  The Backbone Routers
   interconnect the LLNs and advertise the addresses of the 6LNs over
   the Backbone Link using ND proxy operations.

   This specification updates IPv6 ND over the backbone to distinguish
   address movement from duplication and eliminate Stale state in the
   backbone routers and backbone nodes once a 6LN has roamed.  This way,
   mobile nodes may roam rapidly from one 6BBR to the next, and
   requirements are met per "Requirements Related to Mobility" (see
   Appendix B.1 of [RFC8505]).

   A 6LN can register its IPv6 addresses and thereby obtain ND proxy
   services over the backbone, meeting the requirements expressed in
   "Requirements Related to Proxy Operations" (see Appendix B.4 of
   [RFC8505].

   The negative impact of the IPv6 ND-related broadcasts can be limited
   to one of the federated links, enabling the number of 6LNs to grow.
   The Routing Proxy operation avoids the need to expose the link-layer
   addresses of the 6LNs onto the backbone, keeping the Layer 2 topology
   simple and stable.  This meets the requirements in "Requirements
   Related to Scalability" (see Appendix B.6 of [RFC8505]), as long as
   the 6BBRs are dimensioned for the number of registrations that each
   needs to support.

   In the case of a Wi-Fi access link, a 6BBR may be collocated with the
   AP, a Fabric Edge (FE), or a Control and Provisioning of Wireless
   Access Points (CAPWAP) [RFC5415] Wireless LAN Controller (WLC).  In
   those cases, the wireless client (STA) is the 6LN that makes use of
   [RFC8505] to register its IPv6 address(es) to the 6BBR acting as the
   Routing Registrar.  The 6LBR can be centralized and either connected
   to the Backbone Link or reachable over IP.  The 6BBR ND proxy
   operations eliminate the need for wireless nodes to respond
   synchronously when a lookup is performed for their IPv6 addresses.
   This provides the function of a Sleep Proxy for ND [DAD-APPROACHES].

   For the Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) mode of [IEEEstd802154],
   the 6TiSCH architecture [6TiSCH] describes how a 6LoWPAN ND host
   could connect to the Internet via a RPL mesh network, but doing so
   requires extensions to the 6LOWPAN ND protocol to support mobility
   and reachability in a secure and manageable environment.  The
   extensions detailed in this document also work for the 6TiSCH
   architecture, serving the requirements listed in "Requirements
   Related to Routing Protocols" (see Appendix B.2 of [RFC8505]).

   The registration mechanism may be seen as a more reliable alternate
   to snooping [SAVI-WLAN].  Note that registration and snooping are not
   mutually exclusive.  Snooping may be used in conjunction with the
   registration for nodes that do not register their IPv6 addresses.
   The 6BBR assumes that if a node registers at least one IPv6 address
   to it, then the node registers all of its addresses to the 6BBR.
   With this assumption, the 6BBR can possibly cancel all undesirable
   multicast NS messages that would otherwise have been delivered to
   that node.

   Scalability of the MLSN [RFC4903] requires avoidance of multicast/
   broadcast operations as much as possible even on the backbone
   [MCAST-PROBLEMS].  Although hosts can connect to the backbone using
   IPv6 ND operations, multicast RAs can be saved by using [RS-REFRESH],
   which also requires the support of [RFC7559].

Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Dorothy Stanley, Thomas Watteyne, and Jerome Henry for
   their various contributions.  Also, many thanks to Timothy Winters
   and Erik Nordmark for their help, review, and support in preparation
   for the IESG cycle and to Kyle Rose, Elwyn Davies, Barry Leiba, Mirja
   Kühlewind, Alvaro Retana, Roman Danyliw, and especially Dominique
   Barthel and Benjamin Kaduk for their useful contributions through the
   IETF Last Call and IESG process.

Authors' Addresses

   Pascal Thubert (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Building D
   45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
   06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
   France

   Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
   Email: pthubert@cisco.com


   Charles E. Perkins
   Blue Meadow Networking
   Saratoga, CA 95070
   United States of America

   Email: charliep@computer.org


   Eric Levy-Abegnoli
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Building D
   45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
   06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
   France

   Phone: +33 497 23 26 20
   Email: elevyabe@cisco.com