draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-01.txt   draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-02.txt 
6MAN J. Hui 6MAN J. Hui
Internet-Draft Arch Rock Corporation Internet-Draft Arch Rock Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track JP. Vasseur Intended status: Standards Track JP. Vasseur
Expires: April 26, 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc Expires: August 12, 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc
October 23, 2010 February 8, 2011
RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams
draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-01 draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-02
Abstract Abstract
The RPL protocol requires data-plane datagrams to carry RPL routing The RPL protocol requires data-plane datagrams to carry RPL routing
information that is processed by RPL routers when forwarding those information that is processed by RPL routers when forwarding those
datagrams. This document describes the RPL option for use within a datagrams. This document describes the RPL option for use within a
RPL domain. RPL domain.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Format of the RPL Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Format of the RPL Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. RPL Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. RPL Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. RPL Border Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. RPL Border Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Usage of the RPL Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Usage of the RPL Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Protocol Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Protocol Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RPL is a distance vector IPv6 routing protocol designed for low power RPL is a distance vector IPv6 routing protocol designed for low power
and lossy networks [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. Such networks are typically and lossy networks [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. Such networks are typically
constrained in energy and/or channel capacity. To conserve precious constrained in energy and/or channel capacity. To conserve precious
resources, a routing protocol must generate control traffic resources, a routing protocol must generate control traffic
sparingly. However, this is at odds with the need to quickly sparingly. However, this is at odds with the need to quickly
propagate any new routing information to resolve routing propagate any new routing information to resolve routing
inconsistencies quickly. inconsistencies quickly.
To help minimize resource consumption, RPL uses a slow proactive To help minimize resource consumption, RPL uses a slow proactive
process to construct and maintain a routing topology but a reactive process to construct and maintain a routing topology but a reactive
and dynamic approach to resolving routing inconsistencies. In the and dynamic process to resolving routing inconsistencies. In the
steady state, RPL maintains the routing topology using a low-rate steady state, RPL maintains the routing topology using a low-rate
beaconing process. However, when RPL detects inconsistencies that beaconing process. However, when RPL detects inconsistencies that
may prevent proper datagram delivery, RPL temporarily increases the may prevent proper datagram delivery, RPL temporarily increases the
beacon rate to quickly resolve those inconsistencies. Such a dynamic beacon rate to quickly resolve those inconsistencies. This dynamic
rate of control packets operation is governed by the use of dynamic rate control operation is governed by the use of dynamic timers also
timers also referred to as "trickle" timers and defined in referred to as "Trickle" timers and defined in
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle]. By contrast with other routing protocols [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle]. In contrast to other routing protocols (e.g
such as OSPF ([RFC2328]), RPL detects routing inconsistencies using OSPF [RFC2328]), RPL detects routing inconsistencies using data-path
data-path verification, by including routing information within the verification, by including routing information within the datagram
datagram itself. Data-path verification quickly detects and resolves itself. In doing so, repair mechanisms operate only as needed,
inconsistencies when routes are needed by the data flow itself. In allowing the control and data planes to operate on similar time
doing so, repair mechanisms operate only as needed, allowing the scales. The main motivation for data path verification in Low power
control and data planes to operate on similar time scales. The main and Lossy Networks (LLNs) is that control plane traffic should be
motivation for data path verification in Low power and Lossy Networks carefully bounded with respect to the data traffic. Intuitively,
(LLNs) is that control plane traffic should be carefully bounded with there is no need to solve routing issues (which may be temporary) in
respect to the data traffic: there is no need to solve a routing the absence of data traffic.
issues (which may be temporary) in the absence of data traffic.
The RPL protocol constructs a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) that The RPL protocol constructs a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) that
attempts to minimize path costs to the DAG root according to a set of attempts to minimize path costs to the DAG root according to a set of
metric and objective functions. There are circumstances where loops metric and objective functions. There are circumstances where loops
may occur, and RPL is designed to use a data-path loop detection may occur, and RPL is designed to use a data-path loop detection
method. This is one of the known requirements of RPL and other data- method. This is one of the known requirements of RPL and other data-
path usage might be defined in the future. path usage might be defined in the future.
To that end, this document proposes a new IPv6 option called the RPL To that end, this document proposes a new IPv6 option, called the RPL
Option to be carried within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header. The RPL Option, to be carried within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header. The RPL
Option is for use only within a RPL domain. Option is only for use within a RPL domain.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Overview 2. Overview
Datagrams being forwarded within a RPL domain MUST include a RPL Datagrams being forwarded within a RPL domain MUST include a RPL
Option. For datagrams sourced within a RPL domain, the RPL Option Option. For datagrams sourced within a RPL domain, the RPL Option
MAY be included in the datagram itself. For datagrams sourced MAY be included in the datagram itself. For datagrams sourced
outside a RPL domain, IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified in outside a RPL domain, IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified in
[RFC2473] MUST be used to include a RPL Option. When forwarding the [RFC2473] SHOULD be used to include a RPL Option. When tunneling,
datagram, the router MUST prepend a new IPv6 header and IPv6 Hop-by- the router MUST prepend a new IPv6 header and IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
Hop Options header containing the RPL Option to the existing header containing the RPL Option to the existing datagram. Use of
datagram. Use of tunneling ensures that the datagram is delivered tunneling ensures that the datagram is delivered unmodified and that
unmodified and that ICMP errors return to the RPL Option source ICMP errors return to the RPL Option source rather than the source of
rather than the source of the original datagram. the original datagram.
To help avoid IP-layer fragmentation, the RPL Option has a maximum To help avoid IP-layer fragmentation, the RPL Option has a maximum
size of RPL_OPTION_MAX_SIZE octets and links within a RPL domain size of RPL_OPTION_MAX_SIZE octets and links within a RPL domain
SHOULD have a MTU of at least 1280 + 44 (outer IP header, Hop-by-Hop SHOULD have a MTU of at least 1280 + 44 (outer IP header, Hop-by-Hop
Option header, Option header) + RPL_OPTION_MAX_SIZE + (additional Option header, Option header) + RPL_OPTION_MAX_SIZE + (additional
extension headers or options needed within RPL domain). extension headers or options needed within RPL domain).
3. Format of the RPL Option 3. Format of the RPL Option
The RPL option is carried in an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header, The RPL Option is carried in an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header,
immediately following the IPv6 header. The RPL option has the immediately following the IPv6 header. This option has an alignment
following format: requirement of 2n. The option has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len | | Option Type | Opt Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|O|R|F|0|0|0|0|0| RPLInstanceID | SenderRank | |O|R|F|0|0|0|0|0| RPLInstanceID | SenderRank |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (sub-TLVs) | | (sub-TLVs) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: RPL Option Figure 1: RPL Option
Option Type: TBD Option Type: TBD
Opt Data Len: Opt Data Len: 8-bit field indicating the length of the option, in
octets, excluding the Option Type and Opt Data Len fields.
Down 'O': 1-bit flag indicating whether the packet is expected to Down 'O': 1-bit flag as defined in Section 11 of
progress Up or Down. A router sets the 'O' flag when the [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
packet is expected to progress Down (using DAO routes), and
clears it when forwarding toward the DODAG root (to a node with
a lower rank). A host or RPL leaf node MUST set the 'O' flag
to 0.
Rank-Error 'R': 1-bit flag indicating whether a rank error was Rank-Error 'R': 1-bit flag as defined in Section 11 of
detected. A rank error is detected when there is a mismatch in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
the relative ranks and the direction as indicated in the 'O'
bit. A host or RPL leaf node MUST set the 'R' bit to 0.
Forwarding-Error 'F': 1-bit flag indicating that this node can not Forwarding-Error 'F': 1-bit flag as defined in Section 11 of
forward the packet further towards the destination. The 'F' [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
bit might be set by a child node that does not have a route to
destination for a packet with the Down 'O' bit set. A host or
RPL leaf node MUST set the 'F' bit to 0.
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the DODAG instance along which RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field as defined in Section 11 of
the packet is sent. [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
SenderRank: 16-bit field set to zero by the source and to SenderRank: 16-bit field as defined in Section 11 of
DAGRank(rank) by a router that forwards inside the RPL network. [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
Values within the RPL option are expected to change en-route. Nodes Values within the RPL Option are expected to change en-route. Nodes
that do not understand the RPL option MUST discard the packet. Thus, that do not understand the RPL Option MUST discard the packet. Thus,
according to [RFC2460] the two high order bits of the Option Type according to [RFC2460] the two high order bits of the Option Type
must be equal set to '01' and the third bit is equal to '1'. The RPL must be equal set to '01' and the third bit is equal to '1'. The RPL
Option Data Length is variable. Option Data Length is variable.
The action taken by using the RPL Option and the potential set of The action taken by using the RPL Option and the potential set of
sub-TLVs carried within the RPL Option MUST be specified by the RFC sub-TLVs carried within the RPL Option MUST be specified by the RFC
of the protocol that use that option. No TLVs are currently defined. of the protocol that use that option. No TLVs are defined in this
document.
4. RPL Router Behavior 4. RPL Router Behavior
Routers MUST include a RPL Option when forwarding datagrams that do RPL controls when and what information is to be placed in a packet.
not already contain a RPL Option. If one does not already exist, If RPL requires a router to include a RPL Option where one does not
routers MUST use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified in [RFC2473] to already exist, routers SHOULD use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as
include a RPL Option in datagrams that are sourced by other nodes. specified in [RFC2473] to include a RPL Option in datagrams that are
This ensures that the original datagram is delivered unmodified. sourced by other nodes. Using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling ensures that
the original datagram is delivered unmodified.
Performing IP-in-IP encapsulation may grow the datagram to a size Performing IP-in-IP encapsulation may grow the datagram to a size
larger than the IPv6 min MTU of 1280 octets. To help avoid IP-layer larger than the IPv6 min MTU of 1280 octets. To help avoid IP-layer
fragmentation caused by IP-in-IP encapsulation, links within a RPL fragmentation caused by IP-in-IP encapsulation, links within a RPL
domain SHOULD be configured with a MTU of at least 1280 + 44 (outer domain SHOULD be configured with a MTU of at least 1280 + 44 (outer
IP header, Hop-by-Hop Option header, Option header) + IP header, Hop-by-Hop Option header, Option header) +
RPL_OPTION_MAX_SIZE + (additional extension headers or options needed RPL_OPTION_MAX_SIZE + (additional extension headers or options needed
within RPL domain). within RPL domain).
In very specific cases, IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling may be undesirable due
to the added cost and complexity required to process and carry a
datagram with two IPv6 headers. [I-D.hui-6man-rpl-headers] describes
how to avoid using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling in such specific cases and
the risks involved.
5. RPL Border Router Behavior 5. RPL Border Router Behavior
RPL Border Routers (referred to as LBRs in RPL Border Routers (referred to as LBRs in
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]) are responsible for ensuring that a RPL [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]) are responsible for ensuring that a RPL
Option is only used within a RPL domain. Option is only used within a RPL domain.
For datagrams entering the RPL domain, RPL Border Routers MUST drop For datagrams entering the RPL domain, RPL Border Routers MUST drop
received datagrams that contain a RPL Option in the IPv6 Extension received datagrams that contain a RPL Option in the IPv6 Extension
headers. headers.
For datagrams exiting the RPL domain, RPL Border Routers MUST remove For datagrams exiting the RPL domain, RPL Border Routers MUST remove
the RPL Option from the datagram and update the IPv6 Payload Length the RPL Option from the datagram. If the RPL Option was included
field accordingly. using tunneled mode and the RPL Border Router serves as the tunnel
end-point, removing the outer IPv6 header serves to remove the RPL
Option as well. Otherwise, the RPL Border Router assumes that the
RPL Option was included using transport mode and MUST remove the RPL
Option from the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option header.
6. Usage of the RPL Option 6. Usage of the RPL Option
The RPL option is only for use within a RPL domain. RPL routers MUST The RPL Option is only for use within a RPL domain. RPL routers MUST
process and include the RPL option when forwarding datagrams to other process and include the RPL Option when forwarding datagrams to other
nodes within the RPL domain. Routers on the edge of a RPL domain nodes within the RPL domain. Routers on the edge of a RPL domain
MUST remove the RPL option when forwarding datagrams to nodes outside MUST remove the RPL Option when forwarding datagrams to nodes outside
the RPL domain. the RPL domain.
7. Protocol Constants 7. Protocol Constants
RPL_OPTION_MAX_SIZE 128 RPL_OPTION_MAX_SIZE 128
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Richard Kelsey, Vishwas Manral, Erik Nordmark, The authors thank Richard Kelsey, Suresh Krishnan, Vishwas Manral,
Pascal Thubert, and Tim Winter, for their comments and suggestions Erik Nordmark, Pascal Thubert, and Tim Winter, for their comments and
that helped shape this document. suggestions that helped shape this document.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
The RPL option requires an IPv6 Option Number. IANA is requested to reserve a new value in the Destination Options
and Hop-by-Hop Options registry. The proposed value to be confirmed
by IANA is:
HEX act chg rest Hex Value Binary Value
--- --- --- ----- act chg rest Description Reference
1 01 1 01011 --------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------
0x6b 01 1 01011 RPL Option [RFCthis]
The first two bits indicate that the IPv6 node MUST discard the As specified in [RFC2460], the first two bits indicate that the IPv6
packet if it doesn't recognize the option type, and the third bit node MUST discard the packet if it doesn't recognize the option type,
indicates that the Option Data may change en-route. and the third bit indicates that the Option Data may change en-route.
The remaining bits serve to as the option type are are '01011' (to be
confirmed by IANA).
This document also creates a new IANA registry for the sub-TLVs. No IANA is requested to create a registry called RPL-option-TLV, for the
sub-TLVs are defined in this specification. The policy for this TLVs carried in the RPL Option header. New codes may be allocated
registry [RFC5226] is IETF Review. only by IETF Review [RFC5226]. The type field is an 8-bit field
whose value be between 0 and 255, inclusive.
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
This option may be used a several potential attacks since routers may This option may be used a several potential attacks since routers may
be flooded by bogus datagram containing the RPL option. It is thus be flooded by bogus datagram containing the RPL option. It is thus
RECOMMENDED for routers to implement a rate limiter for datagrams RECOMMENDED for routers to implement a rate limiter for datagrams
using the RPL option. using the RPL Option.
11. Changes
(This section to be removed by the RFC editor.)
Draft 01:
- Specify that a node must discard the packet if it doesn't
recognize the RPL option.
- Include RPL loop detection bits in the base header such that an
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option header with the minimal RPL option consumes
only 8 octets.
12. References 11. References
12.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen, T., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Networks, D., Struik, R., and J. Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., and J.
Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and
Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-13 (work in Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-18 (work in
progress), October 2010. progress), February 2011.
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle] [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle]
Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko, Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-04 (work "The Trickle Algorithm", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-08 (work
in progress), August 2010. in progress), January 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
12.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.hui-6man-rpl-headers]
Hui, J., Thubert, P., and J. Vasseur, "Using RPL Headers
Without IP-in-IP", draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00 (work in
progress), July 2010.
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology] [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-04 (work in Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-04 (work in
progress), September 2010. progress), September 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jonathan W. Hui Jonathan W. Hui
Arch Rock Corporation Arch Rock Corporation
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
112 lines changed or deleted 112 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/