| < draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-03.txt | draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-04.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. | ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft Cisco | Internet-Draft Cisco | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track R. Jadhav, Ed. | Intended status: Standards Track R. Jadhav | |||
| Expires: September 20, 2018 Huawei Tech | Expires: December 21, 2018 Huawei Tech | |||
| J. Pylakutty | J. Pylakutty | |||
| Cisco | Cisco | |||
| March 19, 2018 | June 19, 2018 | |||
| Root initiated routing state in RPL | Root initiated routing state in RPL | |||
| draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-03 | draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-04 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document proposes a protocol extension to RPL that enables to | This document proposes a protocol extension to RPL that enables to | |||
| install a limited amount of centrally-computed routes in a RPL graph, | install a limited amount of centrally-computed routes in a RPL graph, | |||
| enabling loose source routing down a non-storing mode DODAG, or | enabling loose source routing down a non-storing mode DODAG, or | |||
| transversal routes inside the DODAG. As opposed to the classical | transversal routes inside the DODAG. As opposed to the classical | |||
| route injection in RPL that are injected by the end devices, this | route injection in RPL that are injected by the end devices, this | |||
| draft enables the root of the DODAG to projects the routes that are | draft enables the root of the DODAG to projects the routes that are | |||
| needed on the nodes where they should be installed. | needed on the nodes where they should be installed. | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶ | |||
| 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://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 September 20, 2018. | This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2018. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 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 | |||
| (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
| 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3. New RPL Control Message Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2.1. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3.1. Via Information Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.2. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4. Projected DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.3. Subset of a 6LoWPAN Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4.1. Non-storing Mode Projected DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2.4. New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 4.2. Storing-Mode Projected DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3. Extending RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 5. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4. New RPL Control Message Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 5.1. Loose Source Routing in Non-storing Mode . . . . . . . . 10 | 5. Projected DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 5.2. Transversal Routes in storing and non-storing modes . . . 11 | 5.1. Non-storing Mode Projected Route . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 6. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5.2. Storing-Mode Projected Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 6. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 6.1. Loose Source Routing in Non-storing Mode . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 6.2. Transversal Routes in storing and non-storing modes . . . 13 | |||
| 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 7. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| A.1. Using storing mode P-DAO in non-storing mode MOP . . . . 16 | 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| A.2. Projecting a storing-mode transversal route . . . . . . . 17 | 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | ||||
| A.1. Using storing mode P-DAO in non-storing mode MOP . . . . 18 | ||||
| A.2. Projecting a storing-mode transversal route . . . . . . . 19 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| The "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550] | The "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550] | |||
| (LLN)(RPL) is a generic Distance Vector protocol that is well suited | (LLN)(RPL) is a generic Distance Vector protocol that is well suited | |||
| for application in a variety of low energy Internet of Things (IoT) | for application in a variety of low energy Internet of Things (IoT) | |||
| networks. RPL forms Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graphs | networks. RPL forms Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graphs | |||
| (DODAGs) in which the root often acts as the Border Router to connect | (DODAGs) in which the root often acts as the Border Router to connect | |||
| the RPL domain to the Internet. The root is responsible to select | the RPL domain to the Internet. The root is responsible to select | |||
| the RPL Instance that is used to forward a packet coming from the | the RPL Instance that is used to forward a packet coming from the | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 17 ¶ | |||
| based on some objective functions that reside in that external | based on some objective functions that reside in that external | |||
| entity. | entity. | |||
| Based on heuristics of usage, path length, and knowledge of device | Based on heuristics of usage, path length, and knowledge of device | |||
| capacity and available resources such as battery levels and | capacity and available resources such as battery levels and | |||
| reservable buffers, a Path Computation Element ([PCE]) with a global | reservable buffers, a Path Computation Element ([PCE]) with a global | |||
| visibility on the system could install additional P2P routes that are | visibility on the system could install additional P2P routes that are | |||
| more optimized for the current needs as expressed by the objective | more optimized for the current needs as expressed by the objective | |||
| function. | function. | |||
| This draft enables a RPL root, with optionally the assistance of a | This draft enables a RPL root to install and maintain projected | |||
| PCE, to install and maintain additional storing and non-storing mode | routes (P-routes) within its DODAG, along a selected set of nodes | |||
| routes within the RPL domain, along a selected set of nodes and for a | that may or may not include self, for a chosen duration. This | |||
| selected duration, thus providing routes more suitable than those | potentially enables routes that are more optimized than those | |||
| obtained with the distributed operation of RPL. Those routes may be | obtained with the distributed operation of RPL, either in terms of | |||
| installed in either storing and non-storing modes RPL instances, | the size of a source-route header or in terms of path length, which | |||
| resulting in potentially hybrid situations where the mode of the | impacts both the latency and the packet delivery ratio. P-routes may | |||
| projected routes is different from that of the other routes in the | be installed in either Storing and Non-Storing Modes Instances of the | |||
| instance. | classical RPL operation, resulting in potentially hybrid situations | |||
| where the mode of some P-routes is different from that of the other | ||||
| routes in the RPL Instance. | ||||
| Projected routes must be used with the parsimony to limit the amount | ||||
| of state that is installed in each device to fit within its | ||||
| resources, and to limit the amount of rerouted traffic to fit within | ||||
| the capabilities of the transmission links. The algorithm used to | ||||
| compute the paths and the protocol used to learn the topology of the | ||||
| network and the resources that are available in devices and in the | ||||
| network are out of scope for this document. Possibly with the | ||||
| assistance of a Path Computation Element ([PCE]) that could have a | ||||
| better visibility on the larger system, the root computes which | ||||
| segment could be optimized and uses this draft to install the | ||||
| corresponding projected routes. | ||||
| 2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
| 2.1. BCP 14 | ||||
| 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | "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. | ||||
| The Terminology used in this document is consistent with and | 2.2. References | |||
| incorporates that described in "Terminology in Low power And Lossy | ||||
| Networks"[RFC7102] and [RFC6550]. | ||||
| 3. New RPL Control Message Options | In this document, readers will encounter terms and concepts that are | |||
| discussed in the following documents: | ||||
| o "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550], and | ||||
| o "Terminology in Low power And Lossy Networks" [RFC7102]. | ||||
| 2.3. Subset of a 6LoWPAN Glossary | ||||
| This document often uses the following acronyms: | ||||
| 6BBR: 6LoWPAN Backbone Router | ||||
| 6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router | ||||
| 6LN: 6LoWPAN Node | ||||
| 6LR: 6LoWPAN Router | ||||
| 6CIO: Capability Indication Option | ||||
| EARO: (Extended) Address Registration Option -- (E)ARO | ||||
| EDAR: (Extended) Duplicate Address Request -- (E)DAR | ||||
| EDAC: (Extended) Duplicate Address Confirmation -- (E)DAC | ||||
| DAD: Duplicate Address Detection | ||||
| DODAG: Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph | ||||
| LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network | ||||
| NA: Neighbor Advertisement | ||||
| NCE: Neighbor Cache Entry | ||||
| ND: Neighbor Discovery | ||||
| NDP: Neighbor Discovery Protocol | ||||
| NS: Neighbor Solicitation | ||||
| RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for LLNs (pronounced ripple) [RFC6550] | ||||
| RA: Router Advertisement | ||||
| RS: Router Solicitation | ||||
| 2.4. New Terms | ||||
| Projected Route: A route that is installed remotely by a RPL root. | ||||
| 3. Extending RFC 6550 | ||||
| Section 6.7 of RPL [RFC6550] specifies Control Message Options (CMO) | Section 6.7 of RPL [RFC6550] specifies Control Message Options (CMO) | |||
| to be placed in RPL messages such as the Destination Advertisement | to be placed in RPL messages such as the Destination Advertisement | |||
| Object (DAO) message. The RPL Target Option and the Transit | Object (DAO) message. The RPL Target Option and the Transit | |||
| Information Option (TIO) are such options; the former indicates a | Information Option (TIO) are such options; the former indicates a | |||
| node to be reached and the latter specifies a parent that can be used | node to be reached and the latter specifies a parent that can be used | |||
| to reach that node. Options may be factorized; one or more | to reach that node. Options may be factorized; one or more | |||
| contiguous TIOs apply to the one or more contiguous Target options | contiguous TIOs apply to the one or more contiguous Target options | |||
| that immediately precede the TIOs in the RPL message. | that immediately precede the TIOs in the RPL message. | |||
| This specification introduces a new Control Message Option, the Via | This specification introduces 2 new Control Message Options referred | |||
| Information option (VIO). Like the TIO, the VIO MUST be preceded by | to as Route Projection Options (RPO). One RPO is the Information | |||
| one or more RPL Target options to which it applies. Unlike the TIO, | option (VIO) and the other is the Source-Routed VIO (SRVIO). The VIO | |||
| the VIO are not factorized: multiple contiguous Via options indicate | installs a route on each hop along a projected route (in a fashion | |||
| an ordered sequence of routers to reach the target(s), presented in | analogous to RPL Storing Mode) whereas the SRVIO installs a source- | |||
| the order of the packet stream, source to destination, and in which a | routing state at the ingress node, which uses it to insert a routing | |||
| routing state must be installed. | header in a fashion similar to Non-Storing Mode. | |||
| The Via Information option MUST contain at least one Via Address. | Like the TIO, the RPOs MUST be preceded by one or more RPL Target | |||
| Options to which they apply, and they can be factorized: multiple | ||||
| contiguous RPOs indicate alternate paths to the target(s). | ||||
| 3.1. Via Information Option | 4. New RPL Control Message Options | |||
| The Via Information option MAY be present in DAO messages, and its | The format of RPOs is as follows: | |||
| format is as follows: | ||||
| 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 | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Type = 0x0A | Option Length | Path Sequence | Path Lifetime | | | Type | Option Length | Path Sequence | Path Lifetime | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| + + | + + | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| . Via Address 1 . | . Via Address 1 . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| + + | + + | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 33 ¶ | |||
| + + | + + | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| . Via Address n . | . Via Address n . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| + + | + + | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Figure 1: Via Information option format | Figure 1: Via Information option format | |||
| Option Type: 0x0A (to be confirmed by IANA) | Option Type: 0x0A for VIO, 0x0B for SRVIO (to be confirmed by IANA) | |||
| Option Length: In bytes; variable, depending on the number of Via | Option Length: In bytes; variable, depending on the number of Via | |||
| Addresses. | Addresses. | |||
| Path Sequence: 8-bit unsigned integer. When a RPL Target option is | Path Sequence: 8-bit unsigned integer. When a RPL Target option is | |||
| issued by the root of the DODAG (i.e. in a DAO message), that | issued by the root of the DODAG (i.e. in a DAO message), that | |||
| root sets the Path Sequence and increments the Path Sequence | root sets the Path Sequence and increments the Path Sequence | |||
| each time it issues a RPL Target option with updated | each time it issues a RPL Target option with updated | |||
| information. The indicated sequence deprecates any state for a | information. The indicated sequence deprecates any state for a | |||
| given Target that was learned from a previous sequence and adds | given Target that was learned from a previous sequence and adds | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 10 ¶ | |||
| the prefix is valid for route determination. The period starts | the prefix is valid for route determination. The period starts | |||
| when a new Path Sequence is seen. A value of all one bits | when a new Path Sequence is seen. A value of all one bits | |||
| (0xFF) represents infinity. A value of all zero bits (0x00) | (0xFF) represents infinity. A value of all zero bits (0x00) | |||
| indicates a loss of reachability. A DAO message that contains | indicates a loss of reachability. A DAO message that contains | |||
| a Via Information option with a Path Lifetime of 0x00 for a | a Via Information option with a Path Lifetime of 0x00 for a | |||
| Target is referred as a No-Path (for that Target) in this | Target is referred as a No-Path (for that Target) in this | |||
| document. | document. | |||
| Via Address: 16 bytes. IPv6 Address of the next hop towards the | Via Address: 16 bytes. IPv6 Address of the next hop towards the | |||
| destination(s) indicated in the target option that immediately | destination(s) indicated in the target option that immediately | |||
| precede the VIO. TBD: See how the /64 prefix can be elided if | precede the RPO. Via Addresses are indicated in the order of | |||
| it is the same as that of (all of) the target(s). In that | the data path from the ingress to the egress nodes. TBD: See | |||
| case, the Next-Hop Address could be expressed as the 8-bytes | how the /64 prefix can be elided if it is the same as that of | |||
| suffix only, otherwise it is expressed as 16 bytes, at least in | (all of) the target(s). In that case, the Next-Hop Address | |||
| storing mode. | could be expressed as the 8-bytes suffix only. | |||
| 4. Projected DAO | An RPO MUST contain at least one Via Address, and a Via Address MUST | |||
| NOT be present more than once, otherwise the RPO MUST be ignored. | ||||
| This draft adds a capability to RPL whereby the root projects a route | 5. Projected DAO | |||
| through an extended DAO message called a Projected-DAO (P-DAO) to an | ||||
| arbitrary router down the DODAG, indicating a next hop or a sequence | ||||
| of routers via which a certain destination indicated in the Target | ||||
| Information option may be reached. | ||||
| A P-DAO message MUST contain at least a Target Information option and | This draft adds a capability to RPL whereby the root of a DODAG | |||
| at least one VIA Information option following it. | projects a route by sending an extended DAO message called a | |||
| Projected-DAO (P-DAO) to an arbitrary router in the DODAG, indicating | ||||
| one or more sequence(s) of routers inside the DODAG via which the | ||||
| target(s) indicated in the Target Information Option(s) (TIO) can be | ||||
| reached. | ||||
| A P-DAO is sent from a global address of the root to a global address | ||||
| of the recipient, and MUST be confirmed by a DAO-ACK, which is sent | ||||
| back to a global address of the root. | ||||
| A P-DAO message MUST contain at least one TIO and at least one RPO | ||||
| following it. There can be at most one such sequence of TIOs and | ||||
| then RPOs. | ||||
| Like a classical DAO message, a P-DAO is processed only if it is | Like a classical DAO message, a P-DAO is processed only if it is | |||
| "new" per section 9.2.2. "Generation of DAO Messages" of the RPL | "new" per section 9.2.2. "Generation of DAO Messages" of the RPL | |||
| specification [RFC6550]; this is determined using the Path Sequence | specification [RFC6550]; this is determined using the Path Sequence | |||
| information from the VIO as opposed to a TIO. Also, a Path Lifetime | information from the RPO as opposed to a TIO. Also, a Path Lifetime | |||
| of 0 in a VIO indicates that a route is to be removed. | of 0 in an RPO indicates that a route is to be removed. | |||
| There are two kinds of P-DAO, the storing mode and the non-storing | ||||
| mode ones. | ||||
| The non-storing mode P-DAO discussed in section Section 4.1 has a | ||||
| single VIO with one or more Via Addresses in it, the list of Via | ||||
| Addresses indicating the source-routed path to the target to be | ||||
| installed in the router that receives the message, which replies | ||||
| to the root directly with a DAO-ACK message. | ||||
| The storing mode P-DAO discussed in section Section 4.2 has at | ||||
| least two Via Information options with one Via Address each, for | ||||
| the ingress and the egress of the path, and more if there are | ||||
| intermediate routers. The Via Addresses indicate the routers in | ||||
| which the routing state to the target have to be installed via the | ||||
| next Via Address in the sequence of VIO. In normal operations, | ||||
| the P-DAO is propagated along the chain of Via Routers from the | ||||
| egress router of the path till the ingress one, which confirms the | ||||
| installation to the root with a DAO-ACK message. Note that the | ||||
| root may be the ingress and it may be the egress of the path, that | ||||
| it can also be neither but it cannot be both. | ||||
| The root is expected to use these mechanisms optimally and with | There are two kinds of operation for the projected routes, the | |||
| required parsimony to limit the state installed in the devices to fit | Storing Mode and the Non-Storing Mode. | |||
| within their resources, but how the root figures the amount of | ||||
| resources that is available in each device is out of scope for this | ||||
| document. | ||||
| In particular, the draft expects that the root has enough information | The Non-Storing Mode is discussed in section Section 5.1. It uses | |||
| about the capability for each node to store a number of routes, which | an SRVIO that carries a list of Via Addresses to be used as a | |||
| can be discovered for instance using a Network Management System | source-routed path to the target. The recipient of the P-DAO is | |||
| (NMS) and/or the RPL routing extensions specified in "Routing for | the ingress router of the source-routed path. Upon a Non-Storing | |||
| Path Calculation in LLNs" [RFC6551]. | Mode P-DAO, the ingress router installs a source-routed state to | |||
| the target and replies to the root directly with a DAO-ACK | ||||
| message. | ||||
| A route that is installed by a P-DAO is not necessarily installed | The Storing Mode is discussed in section Section 5.2. It uses a | |||
| along the DODAG, though how the root and the optional PCE obtain the | VIO with one Via Address per consecutive hop, from the ingress to | |||
| additional topological information to compute other routes is out of | the egress of the path, including the list of all intermediate | |||
| scope for this document | routers in the data path order. The Via Addresses indicate the | |||
| routers in which the routing state to the target have to be | ||||
| installed via the next Via Address in the VIO. In normal | ||||
| operations, the P-DAO is propagated along the chain of Via Routers | ||||
| from the egress router of the path till the ingress one, which | ||||
| confirms the installation to the root with a DAO-ACK message. | ||||
| Note that the root may be the ingress and it may be the egress of | ||||
| the path, that it can also be neither but it cannot be both. | ||||
| 4.1. Non-storing Mode Projected DAO | 5.1. Non-storing Mode Projected Route | |||
| As illustrated in Figure 2, the non-storing mode P-DAO enables the | As illustrated in Figure 2, a P-DAO that carries an SRVIO enables the | |||
| root to install a source-routed path towards a target in any | root to install a source-routed path towards a target in any | |||
| particular router; with this path information the router can add a | particular router; with this path information the router can add a | |||
| source routed header reflecting the path to any packet for which the | source routed header reflecting the P-route to any packet for which | |||
| current destination either is the said target or can be reached via | the current destination either is the said target or can be reached | |||
| the target, for instance a loose source routed packet for which the | via the target. | |||
| next loose hop is the target, or a packet for which the router has a | ||||
| routing state to the final destination via the target. | ||||
| ------+--------- | ------+--------- | |||
| | Internet | | Internet | |||
| | | | | |||
| +-----+ | +-----+ | |||
| | | Border Router | | | Border Router | |||
| | | (RPL Root) | | | (RPL Root) | |||
| +-----+ | P ^ | | +-----+ | P ^ | | |||
| | | DAO | ACK | Loose | | | DAO | ACK | Loose | |||
| o o o o router V | | Source | o o o o router V | | Source | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 46 ¶ | |||
| o o o o o o o o o o | Source . Path | o o o o o o o o o o | Source . Path | |||
| o o o o o o o o o | Route . From | o o o o o o o o o | Route . From | |||
| o o o o o o o o | Path . Root | o o o o o o o o | Path . Root | |||
| o o o o o target V . To | o o o o o target V . To | |||
| o o o o | Desti- | o o o o | Desti- | |||
| o o o o | nation | o o o o | nation | |||
| destination V | destination V | |||
| LLN | LLN | |||
| Figure 2: Projecting a Non-Storing route | Figure 2: Projecting a Non-Storing Route | |||
| A router that receives a non-storing P-DAO installs a source routed | A route indicated by an SRVIO may be loose, meaning that the node | |||
| path towards each of the consecutive targets via a source route path | that owns the next listed Via Address is not necessarily a neighbor. | |||
| indicated in the following VIO. | Without proper loop avoidance mechanisms, the interaction of loose | |||
| source routing and other mechanisms may effectively cause loops. In | ||||
| order to avoid those loops, if the router that installs a P-route | ||||
| does not have a connected route (a direct adjacency) to the next | ||||
| soure routed hop and fails to locate it as a neighbor or a neighbor | ||||
| of a neighbor, then it MUST ensure that it has another projected | ||||
| route to the next loose hop under the control of the same route | ||||
| computation system, otherwise the P-DAO is rejected. | ||||
| When forwarding a packet to a destination for which the router | When forwarding a packet to a destination for which the router | |||
| determines that routing happens via the target, the router inserts | determines that routing happens via the target, the router inserts | |||
| the source routing header in the packet to reach the target. | the source routing header in the packet to reach the target. In the | |||
| case of a loose source-routed path, there MUST be either a neighbor | ||||
| that is adjacent to the loose next hop, on which case the packet s | ||||
| forwarded to that neighbor, or a source-routed path to the loose next | ||||
| hop; in the latter case, another encapsulation takes place and the | ||||
| process possibly recurses; otherwise the packet is dropped. | ||||
| In order to do so, the router encapsulates the packet with an IP in | In order to add a source-routing header, the router encapsulates the | |||
| IP header and a non-storing mode source routing header (SRH) | packet with an IP-in-IP header and a non-storing mode source routing | |||
| [RFC6554]. | header (SRH) [RFC6554]. | |||
| In the uncompressed form the source of the packet would be self, the | In the uncompressed form the source of the packet would be self, the | |||
| destination would be the first Via Address in the VIO, and the SRH | destination would be the first Via Address in the SRVIO, and the SRH | |||
| would contain the list of the remaining Via Addresses and then the | would contain the list of the remaining Via Addresses and then the | |||
| target. | target. | |||
| In practice, the router will normally use the "IPv6 over Low-Power | In practice, the router will normally use the "IPv6 over Low-Power | |||
| Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch" [RFC8025] | Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch" [RFC8025] | |||
| to compress the RPL artifacts as indicated in the "6LoWPAN Routing | to compress the RPL artifacts as indicated in the "6LoWPAN Routing | |||
| Header" [RFC8138] specification. In that case, the router indicates | Header" [RFC8138] specification. In that case, the router indicates | |||
| self as encapsulator in an IP-in-IP 6LoRH Header, and places the list | self as encapsulator in an IP-in-IP 6LoRH Header, and places the list | |||
| of Via Addresses in the order of the VIO and then the target in the | of Via Addresses in the order of the VIO and then the target in the | |||
| SRH 6LoRH Header. | SRH 6LoRH Header. | |||
| 4.2. Storing-Mode Projected DAO | 5.2. Storing-Mode Projected Route | |||
| As illustrated in Figure 3, the storing mode P-DAO enables the root | As illustrated in Figure 3, the Storing Mode projected iq used by the | |||
| to install a routing state towards a target in the routers along a | root to install a routing state towards a target in the routers along | |||
| segment between an ingress and an egress router; this enables the | a segment between an ingress and an egress router; this enables the | |||
| routers to forward along that segment any packet for which the next | routers to forward along that segment any packet for which the next | |||
| loose hop is the said target, for instance a loose source routed | loose hop is the said target, for instance a loose source routed | |||
| packet for which the next loose hop is the target, or a packet for | packet for which the next loose hop is the target, or a packet for | |||
| which the router has a routing state to the final destination via the | which the router has a routing state to the final destination via the | |||
| target. | target. | |||
| ------+--------- | ------+--------- | |||
| | Internet | | Internet | |||
| | | | | |||
| +-----+ | +-----+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 24 ¶ | |||
| o o o o o o o o o | ^ | Projected . | o o o o o o o o o | ^ | Projected . | |||
| o o o o o o o o o o | | DAO | Route . | o o o o o o o o o o | | DAO | Route . | |||
| 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 v | DAO v . | o o o o o o o o v | DAO v . | |||
| o o LLN o o o | | o o LLN o o o | | |||
| o o o o o Loose Source Route Path | | o o o o o Loose Source Route Path | | |||
| o o o o From Root To Destination v | o o o o From Root To Destination v | |||
| Figure 3: Projecting a route | Figure 3: Projecting a route | |||
| Based on available topological, usage and capabilities node | ||||
| information, the root or an associated PCE computes which segment | ||||
| should be optimized and which relevant state should be installed in | ||||
| which nodes. The algorithm is out of scope but it is envisaged that | ||||
| the root could compute the ratio between the optimal path (existing | ||||
| path not traversing the root, and the current path), the application | ||||
| service level agreement (SLA) for specific flows that could benefit | ||||
| from shorter paths, the energy wasted in the network, local | ||||
| congestion on various links that would benefit from having flows | ||||
| routed along alternate paths. | ||||
| In order to install the relevant routing state along the segment | In order to install the relevant routing state along the segment | |||
| between an ingress and an egress routers, the root sends a unicast | between an ingress and an egress routers, the root sends a unicast | |||
| P-DAO message to the egress router of the routing segment that must | P-DAO message to the egress router of the routing segment that must | |||
| be installed. The P-DAO message contains the ordered list of hops | be installed. The P-DAO message contains the ordered list of hops | |||
| along the segment as a direct sequence of Via Information options | along the segment as a direct sequence of Via Information options | |||
| that are preceded by one or more RPL Target options to which they | that are preceded by one or more RPL Target options to which they | |||
| relate. Each Via Information option contains a Path Lifetime for | relate. Each Via Information option contains a Path Lifetime for | |||
| which the state is to be maintained. | which the state is to be maintained. | |||
| The root sends the P-DAO directly to the egress node of the segment, | The root sends the P-DAO directly to the egress node of the segment. | |||
| which In that P-DAO, the destination IP address matches the Via | In that P-DAO, the destination IP address matches the Via Address in | |||
| Address in the last VIO. This is how the egress recognizes its role. | the last VIO. This is how the egress recognizes its role. In a | |||
| In a similar fashion, the ingress node recognizes its role as it | similar fashion, the ingress node recognizes its role as it matches | |||
| matches Via Address in the first VIO. | Via Address in the first VIO. | |||
| The egress node of the segment is the only node in the path that does | The egress node of the segment is the only node in the path that does | |||
| not install a route in response to the P-DAO; it is expected to be | not install a route in response to the P-DAO; it is expected to be | |||
| already able to route to the target(s) on its own. It may either be | already able to route to the target(s) on its own. It may either be | |||
| the target, or may have some existing information to reach the | the target, or may have some existing information to reach the | |||
| target(s), such as a connected route or an already installed | target(s), such as a connected route or an already installed | |||
| projected route. If one of the targets cannot be located, the node | projected route. If one of the targets cannot be located, the node | |||
| MUST answer to the root with a negative DAO-ACK listing the target(s) | MUST answer to the root with a negative DAO-ACK listing the target(s) | |||
| that could not be located (suggested status 10 to be confirmed by | that could not be located (suggested status 10 to be confirmed by | |||
| IANA). | IANA). | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 43 ¶ | |||
| router in the P-DAO, the router MUST answer to the root with a | router in the P-DAO, the router MUST answer to the root with a | |||
| negative DAO-ACK indicating the successor that is unreachable | negative DAO-ACK indicating the successor that is unreachable | |||
| (suggested status 11 to be confirmed by IANA). | (suggested status 11 to be confirmed by IANA). | |||
| A Path Lifetime of 0 in a Via Information option is used to clean up | A Path Lifetime of 0 in a Via Information option is used to clean up | |||
| the state. The P-DAO is forwarded as described above, but the DAO is | the state. The P-DAO is forwarded as described above, but the DAO is | |||
| interpreted as a No-Path DAO and results in cleaning up existing | interpreted as a No-Path DAO and results in cleaning up existing | |||
| state as opposed to refreshing an existing one or installing a new | state as opposed to refreshing an existing one or installing a new | |||
| one. | one. | |||
| 5. Applications | 6. Applications | |||
| 5.1. Loose Source Routing in Non-storing Mode | 6.1. Loose Source Routing in Non-storing Mode | |||
| A RPL implementation operating in a very constrained LLN typically | A RPL implementation operating in a very constrained LLN typically | |||
| uses the Non-Storing Mode of Operation as represented in Figure 4. | uses the Non-Storing Mode of Operation as represented in Figure 4. | |||
| In that mode, a RPL node indicates a parent-child relationship to the | In that mode, a RPL node indicates a parent-child relationship to the | |||
| root, using a Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) that is unicast | root, using a Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) that is unicast | |||
| from the node directly to the root, and the root typically builds a | from the node directly to the root, and the root typically builds a | |||
| source routed path to a destination down the DODAG by recursively | source routed path to a destination down the DODAG by recursively | |||
| concatenating this information. | concatenating this information. | |||
| ------+--------- | ------+--------- | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 18 ¶ | |||
| This specification enables to store source-routed or storing mode | This specification enables to store source-routed or storing mode | |||
| state in intermediate routers, which enables to limit the excursion | state in intermediate routers, which enables to limit the excursion | |||
| of the source route headers in deep networks. Once a P-DAO exchange | of the source route headers in deep networks. Once a P-DAO exchange | |||
| has taken place for a given target, if the root operates in non | has taken place for a given target, if the root operates in non | |||
| storing mode, then it may elide the sequence of routers that is | storing mode, then it may elide the sequence of routers that is | |||
| installed in the network from its source route headers to destination | installed in the network from its source route headers to destination | |||
| that are reachable via that target, and the source route headers | that are reachable via that target, and the source route headers | |||
| effectively become loose. | effectively become loose. | |||
| 5.2. Transversal Routes in storing and non-storing modes | 6.2. Transversal Routes in storing and non-storing modes | |||
| RPL is optimized for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP), root to leaves and | RPL is optimized for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP), root to leaves and | |||
| Multipoint-to-Point (MP2P) leaves to root operations, whereby routes | Multipoint-to-Point (MP2P) leaves to root operations, whereby routes | |||
| are always installed along the RPL DODAG. Transversal Peer to Peer | are always installed along the RPL DODAG. Transversal Peer to Peer | |||
| (P2P) routes in a RPL network will generally suffer from some stretch | (P2P) routes in a RPL network will generally suffer from some stretch | |||
| since routing between 2 peers always happens via a common parent, as | since routing between 2 peers always happens via a common parent, as | |||
| illustrated in Figure 5: | illustrated in Figure 5: | |||
| o in non-storing mode, all packets routed within the DODAG flow all | o in non-storing mode, all packets routed within the DODAG flow all | |||
| the way up to the root of the DODAG. If the destination is in the | the way up to the root of the DODAG. If the destination is in the | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 10 ¶ | |||
| This specification enables to store source-routed or storing mode | This specification enables to store source-routed or storing mode | |||
| state in intermediate routers, which enables to limit the stretch of | state in intermediate routers, which enables to limit the stretch of | |||
| a P2P route and maintain the characteristics within a given SLA. An | a P2P route and maintain the characteristics within a given SLA. An | |||
| example of service using this mechanism oculd be a control loop that | example of service using this mechanism oculd be a control loop that | |||
| would be installed in a network that uses classical RPL for | would be installed in a network that uses classical RPL for | |||
| asynchronous data collection. In that case, the P2P path may be | asynchronous data collection. In that case, the P2P path may be | |||
| installed in a different RPL Instance, with a different objective | installed in a different RPL Instance, with a different objective | |||
| function. | function. | |||
| 6. RPL Instances | 7. RPL Instances | |||
| It must be noted that RPL has a concept of instance but does not have | It must be noted that RPL has a concept of instance but does not have | |||
| a concept of an administrative distance, which exists in certain | a concept of an administrative distance, which exists in certain | |||
| proprietary implementations to sort out conflicts between multiple | proprietary implementations to sort out conflicts between multiple | |||
| sources of routing information. This draft conforms the instance | sources of routing information. This draft conforms the instance | |||
| model as follows: | model as follows: | |||
| o If the PCE needs to influence a particular instance to add better | o If the PCE needs to influence a particular instance to add better | |||
| routes in conformance with the routing objectives in that | routes in conformance with the routing objectives in that | |||
| instance, it may do so. When the PCE modifies an existing | instance, it may do so. When the PCE modifies an existing | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 11 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 37 ¶ | |||
| Local Instance from the ingress node of that path. A packet | Local Instance from the ingress node of that path. A packet | |||
| associated with that instance will be routed along that path and | associated with that instance will be routed along that path and | |||
| MUST NOT be placed over a Global Instance again. A packet that is | MUST NOT be placed over a Global Instance again. A packet that is | |||
| placed on a Global Instance may be injected in the Local Instance | placed on a Global Instance may be injected in the Local Instance | |||
| based on node policy and the Local Instance paramenters. | based on node policy and the Local Instance paramenters. | |||
| In all cases, the path is indicated by a new Via Information option, | In all cases, the path is indicated by a new Via Information option, | |||
| and the flow is similar to the flow used to obtain loose source | and the flow is similar to the flow used to obtain loose source | |||
| routing. | routing. | |||
| 7. Security Considerations | 8. Security Considerations | |||
| This draft uses messages that are already present in RPL [RFC6550] | This draft uses messages that are already present in RPL [RFC6550] | |||
| with optional secured versions. The same secured versions may be | with optional secured versions. The same secured versions may be | |||
| used with this draft, and whatever security is deployed for a given | used with this draft, and whatever security is deployed for a given | |||
| network also applies to the flows in this draft. | network also applies to the flows in this draft. | |||
| 8. IANA Considerations | 9. IANA Considerations | |||
| This document extends the IANA registry created by RFC 6550 for RPL | This document extends the IANA registry created by RFC 6550 for RPL | |||
| Control Codes as follows: | Control Codes as follows: | |||
| +------+-------------+---------------+ | +------+-------------------+---------------+ | |||
| | Code | Description | Reference | | | Code | Description | Reference | | |||
| +------+-------------+---------------+ | +------+-------------------+---------------+ | |||
| | 0x0A | Via | This document | | | 0x0A | Via | This document | | |||
| +------+-------------+---------------+ | | | | | | |||
| | 0x0B | Source-Routed Via | This document | | ||||
| +------+-------------------+---------------+ | ||||
| RPL Control Codes | RPL Control Codes | |||
| This document is updating the registry created by RFC 6550 for the | This document is updating the registry created by RFC 6550 for the | |||
| RPL 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) as follows: | RPL 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) as follows: | |||
| +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+ | +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+ | |||
| | MOP | Description | Reference | | | MOP | Description | Reference | | |||
| | value | | | | | value | | | | |||
| +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+ | +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+ | |||
| | 5 | Non-Storing mode of operation with | This | | | 5 | Non-Storing mode of operation with | This | | |||
| | | Projected routes | document | | | | Projected routes | document | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | 6 | Storing mode of operation with Projected | This | | | 6 | Storing mode of operation with Projected | This | | |||
| | | routes | document | | | | routes | document | | |||
| +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+ | +----------+------------------------------------------+-------------+ | |||
| DIO Mode of operation | DIO Mode of operation | |||
| 9. Acknowledgments | 10. Acknowledgments | |||
| The authors wish to acknowledge JP Vasseur and Patrick Wetterwald for | The authors wish to acknowledge JP Vasseur and Patrick Wetterwald for | |||
| their contributions to the ideas developed here. | their contributions to the ideas developed here. | |||
| 10. References | 11. References | |||
| 10.1. Normative References | 11.1. Normative References | |||
| [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, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., | [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., | |||
| Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, | Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, | |||
| JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for | JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for | |||
| Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, | Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 27 ¶ | |||
| [RFC8025] Thubert, P., Ed. and R. Cragie, "IPv6 over Low-Power | [RFC8025] Thubert, P., Ed. and R. Cragie, "IPv6 over Low-Power | |||
| Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch", | Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch", | |||
| RFC 8025, DOI 10.17487/RFC8025, November 2016, | RFC 8025, DOI 10.17487/RFC8025, November 2016, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8025>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8025>. | |||
| [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, | [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, | |||
| "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network | "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network | |||
| (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, | (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, | |||
| April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>. | April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>. | |||
| 10.2. Informative References | [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>. | ||||
| 11.2. Informative References | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] | [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] | |||
| Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode | Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode | |||
| of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-13 (work | of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-14 (work | |||
| in progress), November 2017. | in progress), April 2018. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] | [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] | |||
| Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, | Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, | |||
| "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- | "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- | |||
| detnet-architecture-04 (work in progress), October 2017. | detnet-architecture-05 (work in progress), May 2018. | |||
| [PCE] IETF, "Path Computation Element", | [PCE] IETF, "Path Computation Element", | |||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/>. | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/>. | |||
| [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and | [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and | |||
| J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes | J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes | |||
| in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, | in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, | DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>. | |||
| skipping to change at page 20, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 21, line 15 ¶ | |||
| Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
| Village d'Entreprises Green Side | Village d'Entreprises Green Side | |||
| 400, Avenue de Roumanille | 400, Avenue de Roumanille | |||
| Batiment T3 | Batiment T3 | |||
| Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 | Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 | |||
| FRANCE | FRANCE | |||
| Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34 | Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34 | |||
| Email: pthubert@cisco.com | Email: pthubert@cisco.com | |||
| Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor) | Rahul Arvind Jadhav | |||
| Huawei Tech | Huawei Tech | |||
| Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield, | Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield, | |||
| Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 | Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 | |||
| India | India | |||
| Phone: +91-080-49160700 | Phone: +91-080-49160700 | |||
| Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com | Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| James Pylakutty | James Pylakutty | |||
| Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
| End of changes. 50 change blocks. | ||||
| 157 lines changed or deleted | 229 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||