draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-05.txt   draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06.txt 
Network Working Group J. Yi Network Working Group J. Yi
Internet-Draft LIX, Ecole Polytechnique Internet-Draft LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Intended status: Experimental B. Parrein Intended status: Experimental B. Parrein
Expires: January 3, 2016 University of Nantes Expires: January 22, 2016 University of Nantes
July 2, 2015 July 21, 2015
Multi-path Extension for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Multi-path Extension for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
version 2 (OLSRv2) version 2 (OLSRv2)
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-05 draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-06
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a multi-path extension for the Optimized Link This document specifies a multi-path extension for the Optimized Link
State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) to discover multiple State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) to discover multiple
disjoint paths, so as to improve reliability of the OLSRv2 protocol. disjoint paths, so as to improve reliability of the OLSRv2 protocol.
The interoperability with OLSRv2 is retained. The interoperability with OLSRv2 is retained.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
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 January 3, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 43 skipping to change at page 2, line 43
10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidlines . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidlines . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Message TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.2. Message TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)
[RFC7181] is a proactive link state protocol designed for use in [RFC7181] is a proactive link state protocol designed for use in
mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). It generates routing messages mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). It generates routing messages
periodically to create and maintain a Routing Set, which contains periodically to create and maintain a Routing Set, which contains
routing information to all the possible destinations in the routing routing information to all the possible destinations in the routing
domain. For each destination, there exists a unique Routing Tuple, domain. For each destination, there exists a unique Routing Tuple,
which indicates the next hop to reach the destination. which indicates the next hop to reach the destination.
This document specifies an extension of the OLSRv2 protocol This document specifies an extension of the OLSRv2 protocol
[RFC7181], to provide multiple disjoint paths when appropriate for a [RFC7181], to provide multiple disjoint paths when appropriate for a
source-destination pair. Because of the characteristics of MANETs source-destination pair. Because of the characteristics of MANETs
[RFC2501], especially the dynamic topology, having multiple paths is [RFC2501], especially the dynamic topology, having multiple paths is
helpful for increasing network throughput, improving forwarding helpful for increasing network throughput, improving forwarding
reliability and load balancing. reliability and load balancing.
The Multi-path OLSRv2 (MP-OLSRv2) specified in this document uses The Multi-path OLSRv2 (MP-OLSRv2) specified in this document uses
multi-path Dijkstra algorithm by default to explore multiple disjoint Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm by default to explore multiple disjoint
paths from a source router to a destination router based on the paths from a source router to a destination router based on the
topology information obtained through OLSRv2, and forward the topology information obtained through OLSRv2, and to forward the
datagrams in a load-balancing manner using source routing. MP-OLSRv2 datagrams in a load-balancing manner using source routing. MP-OLSRv2
is designed to be interoperable with OLSRv2. is designed to be interoperable with OLSRv2.
1.1. Motivation and Experiments to Be Conducted 1.1. Motivation and Experiments to Be Conducted
This document is an experimental extension of OLSRv2 that can This document is an experimental extension of OLSRv2 that can
increase the data forwarding reliability in dynamic and high-load increase the data forwarding reliability in dynamic and high-load
MANET scenarios by transmitting datagrams over multiple disjoint MANET scenarios by transmitting datagrams over multiple disjoint
paths using source routing. This mechanism is used because: paths using source routing. This mechanism is used because:
o Disjoint paths can avoid single route failures. o Disjoint paths can avoid single route failures.
o Transmitting datagrams through parallel paths can increase o Transmitting datagrams through parallel paths can increase
aggregated throughput and provide load balancing. aggregated throughput and provide load balancing.
o Certain scenarios require some routers must (or must not) be used. o Certain scenarios require some routers must (or must not) be used.
o By having control of the paths at the source, the delay can be o By having control of the paths at the source, the delay can be
provisioned. provisioned.
o A very important application of this extension is combination with o A very important application of this extension is in combination
Forward Error Correction (FEC) coding. Because the packet drop is with Forward Error Correction (FEC) coding. Because the packet
normally continuous in a path (for example, due to route failure), drop is normally bursty in a path (for example, due to route
FEC coding is less effective in single path routing protocols. By failure), FEC coding is less effective in single path routing
providing multiple disjoint paths, the application of FEC coding protocols. By providing multiple disjoint paths, the application
with multi-path protocol is more resilient to routing failures. of FEC coding with multi-path protocol is more resilient to
routing failures.
While existed deployments, running code and simulations have proven While in existing deployments, running code and simulations have
the interest of multi-path extension for OLSRv2 in certain networks, proven the interest of multi-path extension for OLSRv2 in certain
more experiments and experiences are still needed to understand the networks, more experiments and experiences are still needed to
mechanisms of the protocol. The multi-path extension for OLSRv2 is understand the effects of the protocol. The multi-path extension for
expected to be revised and improved to the Standard Track, once OLSRv2 is expected to be revised and improved to the Standard Track,
sufficient operational experience is obtained. Other than general once sufficient operational experience is obtained. Other than
experiences including the protocol specification, interoperability general experiences including the protocol specification,
with original OLSRv2 implementations, the experiences in the interoperability with original OLSRv2 implementations, the
following aspects are highly appreciated: experiences in the following aspects are highly appreciated:
o Optimal values for the number of multiple paths (NUMBER_OF_PATHS) o Optimal values for the number of multiple paths (NUMBER_OF_PATHS)
to be used. This depends on the network topology and router to be used. This depends on the network topology and router
density. density.
o Optimal values for the cost functions. Cost functions are applied o Optimal values used in the cost functions. Cost functions are
to punish the costs of used links and nodes so as to obtain applied to punish the costs of used links and nodes so as to
disjoint paths. What kind of disjointness is desired (node- obtain disjoint paths. What kind of disjointness is desired
disjoint or link-disjoint) may depends on the layer 2 protocol (node-disjoint or link-disjoint) may depend on the layer 2
used, and can be achieved by setting different sets of cost protocol used, and can be achieved by setting different sets of
functions. cost functions.
o Use of other metrics other than hop-count. This multi-path o Use of metrics other than hop-count. This multi-path extension
extension can be used not only for hop-count metric type, but also can be used not only for hop-count metric type, but also other
other metric types that meet the requirement of OLSRv2, such as metric types that meet the requirement of OLSRv2, such as
[I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric]. The metric type used has also [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric]. The metric type used has also
co-relation with the choice of cost functions as indicated in the co-relation with the choice of cost functions as indicated in the
previous bullet. previous bullet point.
o Optimal choice of "key" routers for loose source routing. In some o Optimal choice of "key" routers for loose source routing. In some
cases, loose source routing is used to reduce overhead or for cases, loose source routing is used to reduce overhead or for
interoperability with OLSRv2 routers. Other than the basic rules interoperability with OLSRv2 routers. Other than the basic rules
defined in the following of this document, optimal choices of defined in the following of this document, optimal choices of
routers to put in the loose source routing header can be further routers to put in the loose source routing header can be further
studied. studied.
o Different path-selection schedulers. By default, Round-Robin o Different path-selection schedulers. By default, Round-Robin
scheduling is used to select a path to be used for a datagram. In scheduling is used to select a path to be used for a datagram. In
some scenarios, weighted scheduling can be considered: for some scenarios, weighted scheduling can be considered: for
example, the paths with lower costs (higher path quality) can example, the paths with lower costs (higher path quality) can
transfer more datagrams compared to paths with higher costs. transfer more datagrams compared to paths with higher costs.
o The impacts of the delay variation due to multi-path routing. o The impacts of the delay variation due to multi-path routing.
[RFC2991] brings out some concerns of multi-path routing, [RFC2991] brings out some concerns of multi-path routing,
especially variable latencies. Although current experiments especially variable latencies. Although current experiment
result show that multi-path routing can reduce the jitter in results show that multi-path routing can reduce the jitter in
dynamic scenarios, some transport protocols or applications may be dynamic scenarios, some transport protocols or applications may be
sensitive to the datagram re-ordering. sensitive to the datagram re-ordering.
o The disjoint multi-path protocol has interesting application with o The disjoint multi-path protocol has interesting application with
Forward Error Correction (FEC) Coding, especially for services Forward Error Correction (FEC) Coding, especially for services
like video/audio streaming. The combination of FEC coding like video/audio streaming. The combination of FEC coding
mechanisms and this extension is thus encouraged. By applying FEC mechanisms and this extension is thus encouraged. By applying FEC
coding, the issue of packet re-ordering can be alleviated. coding, the issue of packet re-ordering can be alleviated.
o Other algorithms to obtain multiple paths, other than the default o Different algorithms to obtain multiple paths, other than the
Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm introduced in this specification. default Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm introduced in this
specification.
o In addition to IP source routing based approach, it can be o In addition to the IP source routing based approach, it can be
interesting to try multi-path routing in MANET using label- interesting to try multi-path routing in MANET using label-
switched flow in the future. switched flow in the future.
o The use of multi-topology information. By using o The use of multi-topology information. By using
[I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology], multiple topologies using [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology], multiple topologies using
different metric types can be obtained. It is encouraged to different metric types can be obtained. It is also encouraged to
experiment the use of multiple metrics for building multiple paths experiment the use of multiple metrics for building multiple
also. paths.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
This document uses the terminology and notation defined in [RFC5444], This document uses the terminology and notation defined in [RFC5444],
[RFC6130], [RFC7181]. Additionally, it defines the following [RFC6130], [RFC7181]. Additionally, it defines the following
terminology: terminology:
OLSRv2 Routing Process - The routing process based on [RFC7181], OLSRv2 Routing Process - The routing process based on [RFC7181],
without multi-path extension specified in this document. without multi-path extension specified in this document.
MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process - The routing process based on this MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process - The multi-path routing process based on
specification as an extension to [RFC7181]. this specification as an extension to [RFC7181].
3. Applicability Statement 3. Applicability Statement
As an extension of OLSRv2, this specification is applicable to MANETs As an extension of OLSRv2, this specification is applicable to MANETs
for which OLSRv2 is applicable (see [RFC7181]). It can operate on for which OLSRv2 is applicable (see [RFC7181]). It can operate on
single, or multiple interfaces, to discover multiple disjoint paths single, or multiple interfaces, to discover multiple disjoint paths
from a source router to a destination router. from a source router to a destination router.
MP-OLSRv2 is specially designed for networks with dynamic topology MP-OLSRv2 is specially designed for networks with dynamic topology
and low data rate links. By providing multiple paths, higher and low data rate links. By providing multiple paths, higher
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
o Provide a Routing Set containing shortest routes from this router o Provide a Routing Set containing shortest routes from this router
to all destinations. to all destinations.
In addition, the MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process identifies the routers In addition, the MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process identifies the routers
that support source routing by adding a new Message TLV in HELLO and that support source routing by adding a new Message TLV in HELLO and
TC messages. Based on the above information acquired, every MP- TC messages. Based on the above information acquired, every MP-
OLSRv2 Routing Process is aware of a reduced topology map of the OLSRv2 Routing Process is aware of a reduced topology map of the
network and the routers supporting source routing. network and the routers supporting source routing.
A multi-path algorithm is invoked on demand, i.e., only when there is A multi-path algorithm is invoked on demand, i.e., only when there is
datagram to be sent from the source to the destination, and there is a datagram to be sent from the source to the destination, and there
no available routing tuple in the Multi-path Routing Set. The multi- is no available routing tuple in the Multi-path Routing Set. The
path Dijkstra algorithm can generate multiple disjoint paths from a Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm (defined in Section 8.4) can generate
source to a destination, and such information is kept in Multi-path multiple disjoint paths from a source to a destination, and such
Routing Set. information is kept in the Multi-path Routing Set.
The datagram is forwarded based on source routing. When there is a The datagram is forwarded based on source routing. When there is a
datagram to be sent to a destination, the source router acquires a datagram to be sent to a destination, the source router acquires a
path from the Multi-path Routing Set (MAY be Round-Robin, or other path from the Multi-path Routing Set (MAY be Round-Robin, or other
scheduling algorithms). The path information is stored in the scheduling algorithms). The path information is stored in the
datagram header as source routing header. datagram header as source routing header.
All the intermediate routers are listed in the source routing header All the intermediate routers are listed in the source routing header
(SRH), unless there are routers that do not support source-route (SRH), unless there are routers that do not support source-route
forwarding in the paths, or the paths are too long to be fully stored forwarding in the paths, or the paths are too long to be fully stored
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 skipping to change at page 7, line 27
this specification uses the parameters and constants described in this specification uses the parameters and constants described in
this section. this section.
5.1. Router Parameters 5.1. Router Parameters
NUMBER_OF_PATHS The number of paths desired by the router. NUMBER_OF_PATHS The number of paths desired by the router.
MAX_SRC_HOPS The maximum number of hops allowed to be put in the MAX_SRC_HOPS The maximum number of hops allowed to be put in the
source routing header. source routing header.
fp Incremental function of multi-path Dijkstra algorithm. It is fp Incremental function of the Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm. It
used to increase costs of links belonging to the previously is used to increase costs of links belonging to the previously
computed path. computed path.
fe Incremental function of multi-path Dijkstra algorithm. It is fe Incremental function of the Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm. It
used to increase costs of links that lead to routers of the is used to increase costs of links that lead to routers of the
previous computed path. previously computed path.
MR_HOLD_TIME It is the minimal time that a Multi-path Routing Tuple MR_HOLD_TIME It is the minimal time that a Multi-path Routing Tuple
SHOULD be kept in the Multi-path Routing Set. SHOULD be kept in the Multi-path Routing Set.
SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME It is the minimal time that a SR-OLSRv2 Router SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME It is the minimal time that a SR-OLSRv2 Router
Tuple SHOULD be kept in the SR-OLSRv2 Router Set. Tuple SHOULD be kept in the SR-OLSRv2 Router Set.
6. Packets and Messages 6. Packets and Messages
This extension employs the routing control messages HELLO and TC This extension employs the routing control messages HELLO and TC
(Topology Control) as defined in OLSRv2 [RFC7181]. To support source (Topology Control) as defined in OLSRv2 [RFC7181]. To support source
routing, a source routing header is added to each datagram routed by routing, a source routing header is added to each datagram routed by
this extension. Depending on the IP version used, the source routing this extension. Depending on the IP version used, the source routing
header is defined in following of this section. header is defined in this section.
6.1. HELLO and TC messages 6.1. HELLO and TC messages
HELLO and TC messages used by MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process share the HELLO and TC messages used by MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process share the
same format as defined in [RFC7181]. In addition, a new Message TLV same format as defined in [RFC7181]. In addition, a new Message TLV
type is defined, to identify the originator of the HELLO or TC type is defined, to identify the originator of the HELLO or TC
message that supports source route forwarding. The new Message TLV message that supports source route forwarding. The new Message TLV
type is introduced for the interoperability between OLSRv2 and MP- type is introduced for enabling MP-OLSRv2 as an extension of OLSRv2:
OLSRv2: only the routers supporting source-route forwarding can be only the routers supporting source-route forwarding can be used in
used in the source routing header of a datagram, because adding an the source routing header of a datagram, because adding a router that
router that does not understand the source routing header will cause does not understand the source routing header will cause routing
routing failure. failure.
6.1.1. SOURCE_ROUTE TLV 6.1.1. SOURCE_ROUTE TLV
SOURCE_ROUTE TLV is a Message TLV that signals the message is SOURCE_ROUTE TLV is a Message TLV that signals that the message is
generated by a router that supports source-route forwarding. It can generated by a router that supports source-route forwarding. It can
be an MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process, or an OLSRv2 Routing Process that be an MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process, or an OLSRv2 Routing Process that
support source-route forwarding. The SOURCE_ROUTE TLV does not supports source-route forwarding. The SOURCE_ROUTE TLV does not
include any value. include any value.
Every HELLO or TC message generated by a MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process Every HELLO or TC message generated by a MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process
MUST have one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV. MUST have exactly one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV.
Every HELLO or TC message generate by a OLSRv2 Routing Process MAY Every HELLO or TC message generated by an OLSRv2 Routing Process MAY
have one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV, if the OLSRv2 Routing Process supports have one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV, if the OLSRv2 Routing Process supports
source-route forwarding, and is willing to join the source route source-route forwarding, and is willing to join the source route
generated by other MP-OLSRv2 Routing Processes. The existence of generated by other MP-OLSRv2 Routing Processes. The existence of
SOURCE_ROUTE TLV MUST be consistent for a specific OLSRv2 Routing SOURCE_ROUTE TLV MUST be consistent for a specific OLSRv2 Routing
Process, i.e., either it adds SOURCE_ROUTE TLV to all its HELLO/TC Process, i.e., either it adds SOURCE_ROUTE TLV to all its HELLO/TC
messages, or it does not add SOURCE_ROUTE TLV to any HELLO/TC messages, or it does not add SOURCE_ROUTE TLV to any HELLO/TC
message. message.
6.2. Datagram 6.2. Datagram
6.2.1. Source Routing Header in IPv4 6.2.1. Source Routing Header in IPv4
In IPv4 [RFC0791] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing process employs In IPv4 [RFC0791] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing process employs
loose source routing header, as defined in [RFC0791]. It exists as loose source routing header, as defined in [RFC0791]. It exists as
an option header, with option class 0, and option number 3. an option header, with option class 0, and option number 3.
The source route information is kept in the "route data" field of the The source route information is kept in the "route data" field of the
loss source route header. loose source route header.
6.2.2. Source Routing Header in IPv6 6.2.2. Source Routing Header in IPv6
In IPv6 [RFC2460] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing process employs the In IPv6 [RFC2460] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing process employs the
source routing header as defined in [RFC6554], with IPv6 Routing Type source routing header as defined in [RFC6554], with IPv6 Routing Type
3. 3.
The source route information is kept in the "Addresses" field of the The source route information is kept in the "Addresses" field of the
routing header. routing header.
7. Information Bases 7. Information Bases
Each MP-OLSRv2 routing process maintains the information bases as Each MP-OLSRv2 routing process maintains the information bases as
defined in [RFC7181]. Additionally, two more information bases are defined in [RFC7181]. Additionally, two more information bases are
defined for this specification. defined for this specification.
7.1. SR-OLSRv2 Router Set 7.1. SR-OLSRv2 Router Set
The SR-OLSRv2 Router Set records the routers that supports source- The SR-OLSRv2 Router Set records the routers that support source-
route forwarding. It can be routers that run MP-OLSRv2 Routing route forwarding. This includes routers that run MP-OLSRv2 Routing
Process, or OLSRv2 Routing Process with source-route forwarding Process, or OLSRv2 Routing Process with source-route forwarding
support. It consists of SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuples: support. The set consists of SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuples:
(SR_OLSR_addr, SR_OLSR_valid_time) (SR_OLSR_addr, SR_OLSR_valid_time)
where: where:
SR_OLSR_addr - it is the network address of the router that SR_OLSR_addr - it is the network address of the router that
supports source-route forwarding; supports source-route forwarding;
SR_OLSR_valid_time - it is the time until which the SR-OLSRv2 SR_OLSR_valid_time - it is the time until which the SR-OLSRv2
Router Tuples is considered valid. Router Tuples is considered valid.
skipping to change at page 9, line 46 skipping to change at page 9, line 46
(MR_dest_addr, MR_valid_time, MR_path_set) (MR_dest_addr, MR_valid_time, MR_path_set)
where: where:
MR_dest_addr - it is the network address of the destination, either MR_dest_addr - it is the network address of the destination, either
the network address of an interface of a destination router or the the network address of an interface of a destination router or the
network address of an attached network; network address of an attached network;
MR_valid_time - it is the time until which the Multi-path Routing MR_valid_time - it is the time until which the Multi-path Routing
Tuples is considered valid; Tuple is considered valid;
MP_path_set - it contains the multiple paths to the destination. MP_path_set - it contains the multiple paths to the destination.
It consists of Path Tuples. It consists of a set of Path Tuples.
Each Path Tuple is defined as: Each Path Tuple is defined as:
(PT_cost, PT_address[1], PT_address[2], ..., PT_address[n]) (PT_cost, PT_address[1], PT_address[2], ..., PT_address[n])
where: where:
PT_cost - the cost of the path to the destination; PT_cost - the cost of the path to the destination;
PT_address[1...n] - the addresses of intermediate routers to be PT_address[1...n] - the addresses of intermediate routers to be
skipping to change at page 10, line 25 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
This protocol is based on OLSRv2, and extended to discover multiple This protocol is based on OLSRv2, and extended to discover multiple
disjoint paths from a source router to a destination router. It disjoint paths from a source router to a destination router. It
retains the basic routing control packets formats and processing of retains the basic routing control packets formats and processing of
OLSRv2 to obtain topology information of the network. The main OLSRv2 to obtain topology information of the network. The main
differences between OLSRv2 routing process are the datagram differences between OLSRv2 routing process are the datagram
processing at the source router and datagram forwarding. processing at the source router and datagram forwarding.
8.1. HELLO and TC Message Generation 8.1. HELLO and TC Message Generation
HELLO and TC messages are generated according to the section 15.1 or HELLO and TC messages are generated according to the Section 15.1 or
section 16.1 of [RFC7181]. Section 16.1 of [RFC7181].
A single Message TLV with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE MUST be added to the A single Message TLV with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE MUST be added to the
message. message.
8.2. HELLO and TC Message Processing 8.2. HELLO and TC Message Processing
HELLO and TC messages are processed according to the section 15.3 and HELLO and TC messages are processed according to the section 15.3 and
16.3 of [RFC7181]. 16.3 of [RFC7181].
For every HELLO or TC message received, if there exists a Message TLV For every HELLO or TC message received, if there exists a Message TLV
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 11, line 4
and set the SR_OLSR_valid_time := current_time + SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME. and set the SR_OLSR_valid_time := current_time + SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME.
8.3. Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator 8.3. Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator
When the MP-OLSRv2 routing process receives a datagram from upper When the MP-OLSRv2 routing process receives a datagram from upper
layers or interfaces connecting other routing domains, find the layers or interfaces connecting other routing domains, find the
Multi-path Routing Tuple where: Multi-path Routing Tuple where:
o MR_dest_addr = destination of the datagram, and o MR_dest_addr = destination of the datagram, and
o MR_valid_time < current_time. o MR_valid_time > current_time.
If a matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is found, a Path Tuple is If a matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is found, a Path Tuple is
chosen from the MR_path_set in Round-robin fashion (if there are chosen from the MR_path_set in Round-robin fashion (if there are
multiple datagrams to be sent). Or else, the multi-path algorithm multiple datagrams to be sent). Or else, the multi-path algorithm
defined in Section 8.4 is invoked, to generate the desired Multi-path defined in Section 8.4 is invoked, to generate the desired Multi-path
Routing Tuple. Routing Tuple.
The addresses in PT_address[1...n] of the chosen Path Tuple are thus The addresses in PT_address[1...n] of the chosen Path Tuple are thus
added to the datagram header as source routing header, following the added to the datagram header as source routing header, following the
rules: rules:
o Only the addresses exist in SR-OLSR Router Set can be added to the o Only the addresses that exist in SR-OLSR Router Set can be added
source routing header. to the source routing header.
o If the length of the path (n) is greater than MAX_SRC_HOPS, only o If the length of the path (n) is greater than MAX_SRC_HOPS, only
the key routers in the path are kept. By default, the key routers the key routers in the path are kept. By default, the key routers
are uniformly chosen in the path. are uniformly chosen in the path.
o The routers with higher priority (such as higher routing o The routers with higher priority (such as higher routing
willingness) are preferred. willingness defined in [RFC7181]) are preferred.
o The routers that are considered not appropriate for forwarding o The routers that are considered not appropriate for forwarding
indicated by external policies should be avoided. indicated by external policies should be avoided.
8.4. Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm 8.4. Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm
A multi-path algorithm is invoked when there is no available Multi- A multi-path algorithm is invoked when there is no available Multi-
path Routing Tuple to a desired destination d to obtain the multiple path Routing Tuple to a desired destination d to obtain the multiple
paths. This section introduces Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm as a paths. This section introduces Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm as a
default mechanism. It tries to obtain disjoint paths when default mechanism. It tries to obtain disjoint paths when
appropriate, but does not guarantee strict disjoint paths. The appropriate, but does not guarantee strict disjoint paths. The
rationale is explained in Appendix A. rationale is explained in Appendix A.
The use of other algorithms is not prohibited, as long as they can The use of other algorithms is not prohibited, as long as they can
provide a full path from the source to the destination router. Using provide a full path from the source to the destination router. Using
different multi-path algorithms will not impact the interoperability. different multi-path algorithms will not impact the interoperability.
The general principle of the Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is at step The general principle of the Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is at step
i to look for the shortest path Pi to the destination d. Based on i to look for the shortest path P[i] to the destination d. Compared
Dijkstra algorithm, the main modification consists in adding two cost to the original Dijkstra algorithm, the main modification consists in
functions namely incremental functions fp and fe in order to prevent adding two cost functions named incremental functions fp and fe in
the next steps to use similar path. fp is used to increase costs of order to prevent the next steps resulting in similar paths. fp is
arcs belonging to the previously path Pi (or which opposite arcs used to increase costs of arcs belonging to the previous path P[i-1]
belong to it). This encourages future paths to use different arcs (with i>1). This encourages future paths to use different arcs but
but not different vertices. fe is used to increase costs of the arcs not different vertices. fe is used to increase costs of the arcs who
who lead to vertices of the previous path Pi. It is possible to lead to vertices of the previous path P[i-1] (with i>1). It is
choose different fp and fe to get link-disjoint path or node-disjoint possible to choose different fp and fe to get link-disjoint paths or
routes as necessary. A recommendation of configuration of fp and fe node-disjoint paths as desired. A recommendation of configuration of
is given in Section 5. fp and fe is given in Section 9.
To get NUMBER_OF_PATHS distinct paths, for each path Pi (i = 1, ..., To get NUMBER_OF_PATHS different paths, for each path P[i] (i = 1,
NUMBER_OF_PATHS) do: ..., NUMBER_OF_PATHS) do:
1. Run Dijkstra algorithm to get the shortest path Pi for the 1. Run Dijkstra algorithm to get the shortest path P[i] for the
destination d. destination d.
2. Apply cost function fp to the links in Pi. 2. Apply cost function fp to the cost of links (in both directions)
in P[i].
3. Apply cost function fe to the links who lead to routers used in 3. Apply cost function fe to the cost of links (in both directions)
P. that lead to routers used in P[i].
A simple example of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is illustrated in A simple example of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is illustrated in
Appendix A. Appendix A.
By invoking the algorithm depicted above, NUMBER_OF_PATHS distinct By invoking the algorithm depicted above, NUMBER_OF_PATHS paths are
paths are obtained and added to the Multi-path Routing Set, by obtained and added to the Multi-path Routing Set, by creating a
creating a Multi-path Routing Tuple with: Multi-path Routing Tuple with:
o MR_dest_addr := destination d o MR_dest_addr := destination d
o MR_valid_time := current time + MR_HOLD_TIME o MR_valid_time := current time + MR_HOLD_TIME
o Each Path Tuple in the MP_path_set corresponds to a path obtained o Each Path Tuple in the MP_path_set corresponds to a path obtained
in multi-path Dijkstra algorithm, with PT_cost := cost of the path in Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm, with PT_cost := cost of the path
to the destination d. to the destination d (which may include one or several additions
of the cost functions).
8.5. Datagram Forwarding 8.5. Datagram Forwarding
On receiving a datagram with source routing header, the Destination On receiving a datagram with source routing header, the Destination
Address field of the IP header is first compared to the addresses of Address field of the IP header is first compared to the addresses of
the local interfaces. If a matching local address if found, the the local interfaces. If a matching local address if found, the
datagram is processed from Step 1 to Step 4 as follows. Or else, the datagram is processed from Step 1 to Step 4 as follows. Or else, the
datagram is processed from Step 3 to Step 4. datagram is processed from Step 3 to Step 4.
1. Obtain the next source address Address[i] in the source route 1. Obtain the next source address Address[i] in the source route
header. How to obtain the next source address depends on the IP header. How to obtain the next source address depends on the IP
version used. In IPv4, the position of the next source address version used. In IPv4, the position of the next source address
is indicated by the "pointer" field of the source routing header is indicated by the "pointer" field of the source routing header
[RFC0791]. In IPv6, the position is indicated by "Segments Left" [RFC0791]. In IPv6, the position is indicated by "Segments Left"
field of the source routing header. If no next source address is field of the source routing header. If no next source address is
found, the forwarding process is finished. found, the forwarding process is finished and the datagram
arrives at its destination.
2. Swap Address[i] and destination address in the IP header. 2. Swap Address[i] and destination address in the IP header.
3. If the Destination Address of the IP header belongs to one of the 3. If the Destination Address of the IP header belongs to one of the
router's 1-hop symmetric neighbors, the datagram is forwarded to router's 1-hop symmetric neighbors, the datagram is forwarded to
the neighbor router. Or else: the neighbor router. Or else:
4. Forward the datagram to the destination address according to the 4. Forward the datagram to the destination address according to the
OLSRv2 Routing Tuple information through R_local_iface_addr where OLSRv2 Routing Tuple information through R_local_iface_addr where
* R_dest_addr = destination address in the IP header * R_dest_addr = destination address in the IP header
9. Configuration Parameters 9. Configuration Parameters
This section gives default values and guideline for setting This section gives default values and guideline for setting
parameters defined in Section 5. Network administrator may wish to parameters defined in Section 5. Network administrators may wish to
change certain, or all the parameters for different network change certain, or all the parameters for different network
scenarios. As an experimental track protocol, the users of this scenarios. As an experimental track protocol, the users of this
protocol are also encouraged to explore different parameter setting protocol are also encouraged to explore different parameter setting
in various network environments, and provide feedback. in various network environments, and provide feedback.
o NUMBER_OF_PATHS = 3. This parameter defines the number of o NUMBER_OF_PATHS = 3. This parameter defines the number of
parallel paths used in datagram forwarding. Setting it to one parallel paths used in datagram forwarding. Setting it to one
makes the specification identical to OLSRv2. Setting it to too makes the specification identical to OLSRv2. Setting it to too
big value can lead to unnecessary computational overhead and large values may lead to unnecessary computational overhead and
inferior paths. inferior paths.
o MAX_SRC_HOPS = 10. o MAX_SRC_HOPS = 10.
o MR_HOLD_TIME = 10 seconds. o MR_HOLD_TIME = 10 seconds.
o MP_OLSR_HOLD_TIME = 10 seconds. o MP_OLSR_HOLD_TIME = 10 seconds.
o fp(c) = 4*c, where c is the original cost of the link. o fp(c) = 4*c, where c is the original cost of the link.
o fe(c) = 2*c, where c is the original cost of the link. o fe(c) = 2*c, where c is the original cost of the link.
The setting of cost functions fp and fc defines the preference of The setting of cost functions fp and fc defines the preference of
obtained multiple disjoint paths. If id is the identity functions, 3 obtained multiple disjoint paths. If id is the identity function,
cases are possible: i.e., fp(c)=c, 3 cases are possible:
o if id=fe<fp: paths tend to be link disjoint; o if id=fe<fp: paths tend to be link disjoint;
o if id<fe=fp: paths tend to be node-disjoint; o if id<fe=fp: paths tend to be node-disjoint;
o if id<fe<fp: paths also tend to be node-disjoint, but when is not o if id<fe<fp: paths also tend to be node-disjoint, but when is not
possible they tend to be arc disjoint. possible they tend to be arc disjoint.
10. Implementation Status 10. Implementation Status
skipping to change at page 14, line 27 skipping to change at page 14, line 27
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist. exist.
According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
Until April 2014, there are 3 open source implementations of the Until April 2015, there are 3 open source implementations of the
protocol specified in this document, for both testbed and simulation protocol specified in this document, for both testbed and simulation
use. use.
10.1. Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2 10.1. Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2
The implementation is conducted by University of Nantes, France, and The implementation is conducted by University of Nantes, France, and
is based on Niigata University's nOLSRv2 implementation. It is an is based on Niigata University's nOLSRv2 implementation. It is an
open source implementation. The code is available at open source implementation. The code is available at
https://github.com/yijiazi/mpolsr_qualnet and https://github.com/yijiazi/mpolsr_qualnet and
http://jiaziyi.com/index.php/research-projects/mp-olsr . http://jiaziyi.com/index.php/research-projects/mp-olsr .
It can be used for Qualnet simulations, and be exported to run in It can be used for Qualnet simulations, and be exported to run in a
testbed. All the specification is implemented in this testbed. All the specification is implemented in this
implementation. implementation.
Implementation experience and test data can be found at [ADHOC11]. Implementation experience and test data can be found at [ADHOC11].
10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd 10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd
The implementation is conducted under SEREADMO (Securite des Reseaux The implementation is conducted under SEREADMO (Securite des Reseaux
Ad Hoc & Mojette) project, and supported by French research agency Ad Hoc & Mojette) project, and supported by French research agency
(RNRT2803). It is based on olsrd (http://www.olsr.org/) (RNRT2803). It is based on olsrd (http://www.olsr.org/)
implementation, and is open sourced. The code is available at implementation, and is open sourced. The code is available at
https://github.com/yijiazi/mpolsr_testbed and https://github.com/yijiazi/mpolsr_testbed and
http://jiaziyi.com/index.php/research-projects/sereadmo . http://jiaziyi.com/index.php/research-projects/sereadmo .
The implementation is for testing the specification in the field. The implementation is for testing the specification in the field.
All the specification is implemented in this implementation. All the specification is implemented in this implementation.
Implementation experience and test data can be found at [ADHOC11]. Implementation experience and test data can be found at [ADHOC11] and
[GIIS14].
10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR 10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR
The implementation is conducted by University of Nantes, France, and The implementation is conducted by University of Nantes, France, and
is based on um-olsr implementation is based on um-olsr implementation
(http://masimum.inf.um.es/fjrm/development/um-olsr/). The code is (http://masimum.inf.um.es/fjrm/development/um-olsr/). The code is
available at https://github.com/yijiazi/mpolsr_ns2 and available at https://github.com/yijiazi/mpolsr_ns2 and
http://jiaziyi.com/index.php/research-projects/mp-olsr under GNU GPL http://jiaziyi.com/index.php/research-projects/mp-olsr under GNU GPL
license. license.
The implementation is just for network simulation for NS2 network The implementation is for network simulation for NS2 network
simulator. All the specification is implemented in this simulator. All the specification is implemented in this
implementation. implementation.
Implementation experience and test data can be found at [WCNC08]. Implementation experience and test data can be found at [WCNC08].
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
As an extension of [RFC7181], the security considerations and As an extension of [RFC7181], the security considerations and
security architecture illustrated in [RFC7181] are applicable to this security architecture illustrated in [RFC7181] are applicable to this
MP-OLSRv2 specification. MP-OLSRv2 specification.
skipping to change at page 16, line 44 skipping to change at page 16, line 44
Table 1: SOURCE_ROUTE type for RFC 5444 Type 7 Message TLV Type Table 1: SOURCE_ROUTE type for RFC 5444 Type 7 Message TLV Type
Extensions Extensions
13. Acknowledgments 13. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Sylvain David, Asmaa Adnane, Eddy The authors would like to thank Sylvain David, Asmaa Adnane, Eddy
Cizeron, Salima Hamma, Pascal Lesage and Xavier Lecourtier for their Cizeron, Salima Hamma, Pascal Lesage and Xavier Lecourtier for their
efforts in developing, implementing and testing the specification. efforts in developing, implementing and testing the specification.
The authors also appreciate valuable comments and discussions from The authors also appreciate valuable comments and discussions from
Thomas Clausen, Ulrich Herberg, Justin Dean, Geoff Ladwig, Henning Thomas Clausen, Ulrich Herberg, Justin Dean, Geoff Ladwig, Henning
Rogge and Christopher Dearlove. Rogge, Christopher Dearlove and Marcus Barkowsky.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-manet-tlv-naming] [I-D.ietf-manet-tlv-naming]
Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "TLV Naming in the MANET Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "TLV Naming in the MANET
Generalized Packet/Message Format", Generalized Packet/Message Format",
draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-05 (work in progress), draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-05 (work in progress),
June 2015. June 2015.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981. DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih, [RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih,
"Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message "Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message
Format", RFC 5444, February 2009. Format", RFC 5444, DOI 10.17487/RFC5444, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5444>.
[RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc
Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
RFC 6130, April 2011. RFC 6130, DOI 10.17487/RFC6130, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6130>.
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
March 2012. DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
"The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
RFC 7181, April 2014. RFC 7181, DOI 10.17487/RFC7181, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7181>.
[RFC7183] Herberg, U., Dearlove, C., and T. Clausen, "Integrity [RFC7183] Herberg, U., Dearlove, C., and T. Clausen, "Integrity
Protection for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Protection for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
and Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 and Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2
(OLSRv2)", RFC 7183, April 2014. (OLSRv2)", RFC 7183, DOI 10.17487/RFC7183, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7183>.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[ADHOC11] Yi, J., Adnane, A-H., David, S., and B. Parrein, [ADHOC11] Yi, J., Adnane, A-H., David, S., and B. Parrein,
"Multipath optimized link state routing for mobile ad hoc "Multipath optimized link state routing for mobile ad hoc
networks", In Elsevier Ad Hoc Journal, vol.9, n. 1, 28-47, networks", In Elsevier Ad Hoc Journal, vol.9, n. 1, 28-47,
January, 2011. January, 2011.
[GIIS14] Macedo, R., Melo, R., Santos, A., and M. Nogueria,
"Experimental performance comparison of single-path and
multipath routing in VANETs", In Global Information
Infrastructure and Networking Symposium (GIIS), 2014 ,
vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 15-19, 2014.
[I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric] [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric]
Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Packet Sequence Number based Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Packet Sequence Number based
directional airtime metric for OLSRv2", directional airtime metric for OLSRv2",
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-05 (work in progress), draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-05 (work in progress),
April 2015. April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology] [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology]
Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Multi-Topology Extension for Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Multi-Topology Extension for
the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2
(OLSRv2)", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-05 (work (OLSRv2)", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-06 (work
in progress), February 2015. in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats] [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats]
Clausen, T., Herberg, U., and J. Yi, "Security Threats for Clausen, T., Herberg, U., and J. Yi, "Security Threats for
the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2
(OLSRv2)", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats-00 (work in (OLSRv2)", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats-00 (work in
progress), February 2015. progress), February 2015.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998. DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2501] Corson, M. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking [RFC2501] Corson, S. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
(MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999. Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2501, January 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2501>.
[RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and [RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000. Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2991, November 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
December 2007. DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
July 2013. DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.
[WCNC08] Yi, J., Cizeron, E., Hamma, S., and B. Parrein, [WCNC08] Yi, J., Cizeron, E., Hamma, S., and B. Parrein,
"Simulation and performance analysis of MP-OLSR for mobile "Simulation and performance analysis of MP-OLSR for mobile
ad hoc networks", In Proceeding of IEEE Wireless ad hoc networks", In Proceeding of IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, 2008. Communications and Networking Conference, 2008.
Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm
This appendix gives two examples of multi-path Dijkstra algorithm. This appendix gives two examples of multi-path Dijkstra algorithm.
 End of changes. 66 change blocks. 
122 lines changed or deleted 150 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/