Network Working Group                                              J. Yi
Internet-Draft                                  LIX,                                       Ecole Polytechnique
Intended status: Experimental                                 B. Parrein
Expires: October 29, December 10, 2016                          University of Nantes
                                                          April 27,
                                                            June 8, 2016

   Multi-path Extension for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
                           version 2 (OLSRv2)


   This document specifies a multi-path extension for the Optimized Link
   State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) to discover multiple
   disjoint paths, so as to improve reliability of the OLSRv2 protocol.
   The interoperability with OLSRv2 is retained.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, December 10, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Motivation and Experiments to Be Conducted . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Applicability Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Protocol Overview and Functioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Parameters and Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Router Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Packets and Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7  8
     6.1.  HELLO and TC messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7  8
       6.1.1.  SOURCE_ROUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.2.  Datagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       6.2.1.  Source Routing Header in IPv4  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8  9
       6.2.2.  Source Routing Header in IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8  9
   7.  Information Bases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8  9
     7.1.  SR-OLSRv2 Router Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.2.  Multi-path Routing Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.1.  HELLO and TC Message Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.2.  HELLO and TC Message Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11
     8.3.  MPR Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11
     8.4.  Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator  . . . . . 11
     8.5.  Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
       8.5.1.  Requirements of Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . 11 12
       8.5.2.  Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13
     8.6.  Multi-path Routing Set Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.7.  Datagram Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15
   9.  Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15
   10. Implementation Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 16
     10.1. Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2  . . . . . . . . . . 15 16
     10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd  . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17
     10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR . . . . . . . . . . . 16 17
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 17
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 18
     12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidlines Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18
     12.2. Message TLV Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18
   13. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 19
   14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 19
     14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 19
     14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 20
   Appendix A.  Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . 20 21
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22

1.  Introduction

   The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)
   [RFC7181] is a proactive link state protocol designed for use in
   mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs).  It generates routing messages
   periodically to create and maintain a Routing Set, which contains
   routing information to all the possible destinations in the routing
   domain.  For each destination, there exists a unique Routing Tuple,
   which indicates the next hop to reach the destination.

   This document specifies an extension of the OLSRv2 protocol
   [RFC7181], to provide multiple disjoint paths when appropriate for a
   source-destination pair.  Because of the characteristics of MANETs
   [RFC2501], especially the dynamic topology, having multiple paths is
   helpful for increasing network throughput, improving forwarding
   reliability and load balancing.

   The Multi-path OLSRv2 (MP-OLSRv2) specified in this document uses
   Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm by default to explore multiple disjoint
   paths from a source router to a destination router based on the
   topology information obtained through OLSRv2, and to forward the
   datagrams in a load-balancing manner using source routing.  MP-OLSRv2
   is designed to be interoperable with OLSRv2.

1.1.  Motivation and Experiments to Be Conducted

   This document is an experimental extension of OLSRv2 that can
   increase the data forwarding reliability in dynamic and high-load
   MANET scenarios by transmitting datagrams over multiple disjoint
   paths using source routing.  This mechanism is used because:

   o  Disjoint paths can avoid single route failures.

   o  Transmitting datagrams through parallel paths can increase
      aggregated throughput and provide load balancing.

   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  A very important application of this extension is in combination
      with Forward Error Correction (FEC) coding.  Because the packet
      drop is normally bursty in a path (for example, due to route
      failure), FEC coding is less effective in single path routing
      protocols.  By providing multiple disjoint paths, the application
      of FEC coding with multi-path protocol is more resilient to
      routing failures.

   While in existing deployments, running code and simulations have
   proven the interest of multi-path extension for OLSRv2 in certain
   networks, more experiments and experiences are still needed to
   understand the effects of the protocol.  The multi-path extension for
   OLSRv2 is expected to be revised and improved to the Standard Track,
   once sufficient operational experience is obtained.  Other than
   general experiences including the protocol specification,
   interoperability with original OLSRv2 implementations, the
   experiences in the following aspects are highly appreciated:

   o  Optimal values for the number of multiple paths (NUMBER_OF_PATHS)
      to be used.  This depends on the network topology and router

   o  Optimal values used in the metric functions.  Metric functions are
      applied to increase the metric of used links and nodes so as to
      obtain disjoint paths.  What kind of disjointness is desired
      (node-disjoint or link-disjoint) may depend on the layer 2
      protocol used, and can be achieved by setting different sets of
      metric functions.

   o  Use of other metric types.  This multi-path extension can be used
      not only for hop-count metric type, but also other metric types
      that meet the requirement of OLSRv2, such as
      [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric]. [RFC7779].  The
      metric type used has also co-relation with the choice of metric
      functions as indicated in the previous bullet point.

   o  The impact of partial topology information to the multi-path
      calculation.  OLSRv2 maintains a partial topology information base
      to reduce protocol overhead.  Although with existing experience,
      multiple paths can be obtained even with such partial information,
      the calculation might be impacted, depending on the MPR selection
      algorithm used.

   o  Optimal choice of "key" routers for loose source routing.  In some
      cases, loose source routing is used to reduce overhead or for
      interoperability with OLSRv2 routers.  Other than the basic rules
      defined in the following of this document, optimal choices of
      routers to put in the loose source routing header can be further

   o  Different path-selection schedulers.  By default, Round-Robin
      scheduling is used to select a path to be used for datagrams.  In
      some scenarios, weighted scheduling can be considered: for
      example, the paths with lower metrics (i.e., higher quality) can
      transfer more datagrams compared to paths with higher metrics.

   o  The impacts of the delay variation due to multi-path routing.
      [RFC2991] brings out some concerns of multi-path routing,
      especially variable latencies.  Although current experiment
      results show that multi-path routing can reduce the jitter in
      dynamic scenarios, some transport protocols or applications may be
      sensitive to the datagram re-ordering.

   o  The disjoint multi-path protocol has interesting application with
      Forward Error Correction (FEC) Coding, especially for services
      like video/audio streaming.  The combination of FEC coding
      mechanisms and this extension is thus encouraged.  By applying FEC
      coding, the issue of packet re-ordering can be alleviated.

   o  Different algorithms to obtain multiple paths, other than the
      default Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm introduced in this

   o  The use of multi-topology information.  By using [RFC7722],
      multiple topologies using different metric types can be obtained.
      It is also encouraged to experiment the use of multiple metrics
      for building multiple paths.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in

   This document uses the terminology and notation defined in [RFC5444],
   [RFC6130], [RFC7181].  Additionally, it defines the following

   OLSRv2 Routing Process -  The routing process based on [RFC7181],
      without multi-path extension specified in this document.

   MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process -  The multi-path routing process based on
      this specification as an extension to [RFC7181].

3.  Applicability Statement

   As an extension of OLSRv2, this specification is applicable to MANETs
   for which OLSRv2 is applicable (see [RFC7181]).  It can operate on
   single, or multiple interfaces, to discover multiple disjoint paths
   from a source router to a destination router.

   MP-OLSRv2 is specially designed for networks with dynamic topology
   and low data rate links.  By providing multiple paths, higher
   aggregated throughput can be obtained, and the routing process is
   more robust to packet loss.

   In a router supporting MP-OLSRv2, MP-OLSRv2 does not necessarily
   replace OLSRv2 completely.  The extension can be applied for certain
   applications that are suitable for multi-path routing (mainly video
   or audio streams), based on the information such as DiffServ Code
   Point [RFC2474].

   Compared to OLSRv2, this extension does not introduce new message
   type in the air.  A new Message TLV type is introduced to identify
   the routers that support forwarding based on source route header.  It
   is interoperable with OLSRv2 implementations that do not have this

   MP-OLSRv2 forwards datagrams using the source routing header.  For
   IPv4 networks, implementation of loose source routing is required
   following [RFC0791].  For IPv6 networks, implementation of strict
   source routing is required following [RFC6554].

4.  Protocol Overview and Functioning

   This specification requires OLSRv2 [RFC7181] to:

   o  Identify all the reachable routers in the network.

   o  Identify a sufficient subset of links in the networks, so that
      routes can be calculated to all reachable destinations.

   o  Provide a Routing Set containing shortest routes from this router
      to all destinations.

   In addition, the MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process identifies the routers
   that support source routing by adding a new Message TLV in HELLO and
   TC messages.  Based on the above information acquired, every MP-
   OLSRv2 Routing Process is aware of a reduced topology map of the
   network and the routers supporting source routing.

   A Multi-path Routing Set containing the multi-path information is
   maintained.  It may either be proactively calculated or reactively

   o  In the proactive approach, multiple paths to all possible
      destinations are calculated and updated based on control message
      exchange.  The routes are thus available before they are actually

   o  In the reactive approach, a multi-path algorithm is invoked on
      demand, i.e., only when there is a datagram to be sent from the
      source to the destination, and there is no available routing tuple
      in the Multi-path Routing Set.

   Routers in the same network may choose either proactive or reactive
   multi-path calculation independently according to their computation
   resources.  The Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm (defined in
   Section 8.5) can is introduced as the default algorithm to generate
   multiple disjoint paths from a source to a destination, and such
   information is kept in the Multi-path Routing Set.

   The datagram is forwarded based on source routing.  When there is 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
   scheduling algorithms).  The path information is stored in the
   datagram header as source routing header.

5.  Parameters and Constants

   In addition to the parameters and constants defined in [RFC7181],
   this specification uses the parameters and constants described in
   this section.

5.1.  Router Parameters

   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
      source routing header.  A value set zero means there is no
      limitation on the maximum number of hops.  In an IPv6 network, it
      MUST be set to 0.  In an IPv4 network, it MUST be strictly less
      than 11.

   CUTOFF_RATIO   The ratio that defines the maximum metric of a path
      compared to the shortest path kept in the OLSRv2 Routing Set. For
      example, the metric to a destination is R_metric based on the
      Routing Set. Then the maximum metric allowed for a path is
      CUTOFF_RATIO * R_metric.  CUTOFF_RATIO MUST be strictly greater
      than 1.

   SR_TC_INTERVAL   The maximum time between the transmission of two
      successive TC messages by a MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process.

   SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME  It is the minimal time that a SR-OLSRv2 Router
      Tuple SHOULD be kept in the SR-OLSRv2 Router Set.

6.  Packets and Messages

   This extension employs the routing control messages HELLO and TC
   (Topology Control) as defined in OLSRv2 [RFC7181].  To support source
   routing, a source routing header is added to each datagram routed by
   this extension.  Depending on the IP version used, the source routing
   header is defined in this section.

6.1.  HELLO and TC messages

   HELLO and TC messages used by MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process share the
   same format as defined in [RFC7181].  In addition, a new Message TLV
   type is defined, to identify the originator of the HELLO or TC
   message that supports source route forwarding.  The new Message TLV
   type is introduced for enabling MP-OLSRv2 as an extension of OLSRv2:
   only the routers supporting source-route forwarding can be used in
   the source routing header of a datagram, because adding a router that
   does not understand the source routing header will cause routing


   SOURCE_ROUTE TLV is a Message TLV signalling that the message is
   generated by a router that supports source-route forwarding.  It can
   be an MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process, or an OLSRv2 Routing Process that
   supports source-route forwarding.  The SOURCE_ROUTE TLV does not
   include any value.

   Every HELLO or TC message generated by a MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process
   MUST have exactly one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV.

   Every HELLO or TC message generated by an OLSRv2 Routing Process MAY
   have one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV, if the OLSRv2 Routing Process supports
   source-route forwarding, and is willing to join the source route
   generated by other MP-OLSRv2 Routing Processes.  The existence of
   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
   messages, or it does not add SOURCE_ROUTE TLV to any HELLO/TC

6.2.  Datagram
6.2.1.  Source Routing Header in IPv4

   In IPv4 [RFC0791] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing process employs
   loose source routing header, as defined in [RFC0791].  It exists as
   an option header, with option class 0, and option number 3.

   The source route information is kept in the "route data" field of the
   loose source route header.

6.2.2.  Source Routing Header in IPv6

   In IPv6 [RFC2460] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing process employs the
   source routing header as defined in [RFC6554], with IPv6 Routing Type

   The source route information is kept in the "Addresses" field of the
   routing header.

7.  Information Bases

   Each MP-OLSRv2 routing process maintains the information bases as
   defined in [RFC7181].  Additionally, two more information bases are
   defined a Multipath Information base is
   used for this specification.  It includes the protocol sets as
   defined below.

7.1.  SR-OLSRv2 Router Set

   The SR-OLSRv2 Router Set records the routers that support source-
   route forwarding.  This includes routers that run MP-OLSRv2 Routing
   Process, or OLSRv2 Routing Process with source-route forwarding
   support.  The set consists of SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuples:

   (SR_OLSR_addr, SR_OLSR_valid_time)


   SR_OLSR_addr -   it is the network address of the router that
      supports source-route forwarding;

   SR_OLSR_valid_time -   it is the time until which the SR-OLSRv2
      Router Tuples is considered valid.

7.2.  Multi-path Routing Set

   The Multi-path Routing Set records the full path information of
   different paths to the destination.  It consists of Multi-path
   Routing Tuples:

   (MR_dest_addr, MR_path_set)


   MR_dest_addr -   it is the network address of the destination, either
      the network address of an interface of a destination router or the
      network address of an attached network;

   MP_path_set -   it contains the multiple paths to the destination.
      It consists of a set of Path Tuples.

   Each Path Tuple is defined as:

   (PT_metric, PT_address[1], PT_address[2], ..., PT_address[n])


   PT_metric -   the metric of the path to the destination, measured in
      LINK_METRIC_TYPE defined in [RFC7181];

   PT_address[1...n] -   the addresses of intermediate routers to be
      visited numbered from 1 to n.

8.  Protocol Details

   This protocol is based on OLSRv2, and extended to discover multiple
   disjoint paths from a source router to a destination router.  It
   retains the basic routing control packets formats and processing of
   OLSRv2 to obtain topology information of the network.  The main
   differences between OLSRv2 routing process are the datagram
   processing at the source router and datagram forwarding.

8.1.  HELLO and TC Message Generation

   HELLO messages are generated according to the Section 15.1 of

   TC message are generated according to the Section 16.1 of [RFC7181].
   As least one TC message MUST be generated by an MP-OLSRv2 Routing
   Process during SR_TC_INTERVAL.

   For both  Please note that the TC and HELLO messages, a single Message TLV with Type :=
   SOURCE_ROUTE MUST be added to message
   generation based on SR_TC_INTERVAL does not replace the message.

8.2.  HELLO and ordinary TC Message Processing

   message generation specified in [RFC7181] and TC messages are processed according does not carry any
   address.  This is due to the section 15.3 and
   16.3 of [RFC7181].

   For every HELLO or fact that not all routers will generate
   TC message received, if messages based on OLSRv2.  The TC generation based on
   SR_TC_INTERVAL serves for those routers to advertise SOURCE_ROUTE TLV
   so that the other routers can be aware of the source-route enabled
   routers so as to be used as destinations of multipath routing.  The
   SR_TC_INTERVAL is set to a longer value than TC_INTERVAL.

   For both TC and HELLO messages, a single Message TLV with Type :=
   SOURCE_ROUTE MUST be added to the message.

8.2.  HELLO and TC Message Processing

   HELLO and TC messages are processed according to the section 15.3 and
   16.3 of [RFC7181].

   For every HELLO or TC message received, if there is a Message TLV
   with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE, create or update (if the tuple exists
   already) the SR-OLSR Router Tuple with

   o  SR_OLSR_addr := originator of the HELLO or TC message

   o  SR_OLSR_valid_time := current_time + SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME.

8.3.  MPR Selection

   Each MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process selects routing MPRs and flooding MPRs
   following Section 18 of [RFC7181].  In a mixed network with OLSRv2-
   only routers, the following considerations apply when calculating

   o  MP-OLSR routers SHOULD be preferred as routing MPRs.

   o  The number of routing MPRs that run MP-OLSR Routing Process MUST
      be equal or greater than NUMBER_OF_PATHS if there are enough MP-
      OLSR symmetric neighbors.  Or else, all the MP-OLSR routers are
      selected as routing MPRs.

8.4.  Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator

   If datagrams without source routing header need to be forwarded using
   multiple paths (for example, based on the information of DiffServ
   Code Point [RFC2474]), the MP-OLSRv2 routing process will try to find
   the Multi-path Routing Tuple where:

   o  MR_dest_addr = destination of the datagram

   If no matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is found, found and the Multi-path
   Routing Set is maintained proactively, it indicates that there is no
   route available to the desired destination.  The datagram is

   If no matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is found and the Multi-path
   Routing Set is maintained reactively, the multi-path algorithm
   defined in Section 8.5 is invoked, to calculate the Multi-
   path Multi-path
   Routing Tuple to the destination.  If the calculation does not return
   any Multi-path Routing Tuple, the following steps are aborted and the
   datagram is forwarded following OLSRv2 routing process.


   If a matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is obtained, the Path Tuples
   of the Multi-path Routing Tuple obtained are applied to the datagrams using
   Round-robin scheduling.  For example, they are 2 path tuples (Path-1,
   Path-2) for destination router D. A series of datagrams (Packet-1,
   Packet-2, Packet-3, ... etc.) are to be sent router D. Path-1 is then
   chosen for Packet-1, Path-2 for Packet-2, Path-1 for Packet 3, etc.

   The addresses in PT_address[1...n] of the chosen Path Tuple are thus
   added to the datagram header as the source routing header.  For IPv6
   networks, strict source routing is used, thus all the intermediate
   routers in the path are stored in the source routing header following
   [RFC6554].  For IPv4 networks, loose source routing is used, with
   following rules:

   o  Only the addresses that exist in SR-OLSR Router Set can be added
      to the source routing header.

   o  If the length of the path (n) is greater than MAX_SRC_HOPS, only
      the "key" routers in the path are kept.  The key routers can be
      chosen based on the capacity of the routers (e.g., battery life)
      or the router's willingness in forwarding data.  If no such
      information is available, the key routers are uniformly chosen in
      the path.

   o  The routers that are considered not appropriate for forwarding
      indicated by external policies should be avoided.

8.5.  Multi-path Calculation

8.5.1.  Requirements of Multi-path Calculation

   The Multi-path Routing Set maintains the information of multiple
   paths the the destination.  The tuples are generated based on a
   multi-path algorithm.

   A multi-path algorithm is invoked when there is no available Multi-
   path Routing Tuple to a desired destination to obtain the multiple

   For each path to a destination, the algorithm must provide:

   o  The metric of the path to the destination,

   o  The list of intermediate routers on the path.

   For IPv6 networks, as strict source routing is used, only the routers
   that exist in SR-OLSRv2 Router Set are considered in the path
   calculation, i.e., only the source-routing supported routers can
   exist in the path.

   After the calculation of multiple paths, the metric of paths (denoted
   c_i for path i) to the destination is compared to the R_metric of the
   OLSRv2 Routing Tuple ([RFC7181]) to the same destination.  If the
   metric c_i is greater than R_metric * CUTOFF_RATIO, the corresponding
   path i SHOULD NOT be used.  If less than 2 paths are found with
   metrics less than R_metric * CUTOFF_RATIO, the router SHOULD fall
   back to OLSRv2 Routing Process without using multipath routing.  This
   can happen if there are too much OLSRv2-only routers in the network,
   and requiring multipath routing brutally may result in inferior

   By invoking the multi-path algorithm, NUMBER_OF_PATHS paths are
   obtained and added to the Multi-path Routing Set, by creating a
   Multi-path Routing Tuple with:

   o  MR_dest_addr := destination of the datagram

   o  A MP_path_set with calculated Path Tuples.  Each Path Tuple
      corresponds to a path obtained in Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm,
      with PT_metric := metric of the calculated path and
      PT_address[1...n] := list of intermediate routers.

8.5.2.  Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm

   This section introduces Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm as a default
   algorithm.  It tries to obtain disjoint paths when appropriate, but
   does not guarantee strict disjoint paths.  The use of other
   algorithms is not prohibited, as long as the requirements described
   in Section 8.5.1 are met.  Using different multi-path algorithms will
   not impact the interoperability.

   The general principle of the Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is at step
   i to look for the shortest path P[i] to the destination d.  Compared
   to the original Dijkstra algorithm, the main modification consists in
   adding two incremental functions named metric functions fp and fe in
   order to prevent the next steps resulting in similar paths:

   o  fp(c) is used to increase metrics of arcs belonging to the
      previous path P[i-1] (with i>1), where c is the value of the
      previous metric.  This encourages future paths to use different
      arcs but not different vertices.

   o  fe(c) is used to increase metrics of the arcs who that lead to
      intermediate vertices (i.e., the source and destination are not
      considered) of the previous path P[i-1] (with i>1),
      where c is the value of the previous metric.  The "lead to" means
      that only one vertex of the arc belongs to the previous path
      P[i-1], while the the other vertex is not.  The "intermediate"
      means that the source and destination vertices are not considered.

   Considering the simple example in Figure 1: a path P[i] S--A--D is
   obtained at step i.  For the next step, the metric of link S--A and
   A--D are to be increased using fp(c), because they belong to the path
   P[i].  A--B is to be increased using fe(c), because A is an
   intermediate vetex of path P[i], and B is not part of P[i].  B--D is

                                       /    \
                                      /      \
                                     /        \

                                 Figure 1

   It is possible to choose different fp and fe to get link-disjoint
   paths or node-disjoint paths as desired.  A recommendation of
   configuration of fp and fe is given in Section 9.

   To get NUMBER_OF_PATHS different paths, for each path P[i] (i = 1,
   ..., NUMBER_OF_PATHS) do:

   1.  Run Dijkstra algorithm to get the shortest path P[i] for the
       destination d.

   2.  Apply metric function fp to the metric of links (in both
       directions) in P[i].

   3.  Apply metric function fe to the metric of links (in both
       directions) that lead to routers used in P[i].

   A simple example of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is illustrated in
   Appendix A.

8.6.  Multi-path Routing Set Updates

   The Multi-path Routing Set MUST be updated when the Local Information
   Base, the Neighborhood Information Base, or the Topology Information
   Base indicate a change (including of any potentially used outgoing
   neighbor metric values) of the known symmetric links and/or attached
   networks in the MANET, hence changing the Topology Graph, as
   described in section 17.7 of [RFC7181].  How the Multi-path Routing
   Set is updated depends on the set is maintained reactively or

   o  In reactive mode, all the tuples in the Multi-path Routing Set are

   o  In proactive mode, the route to all the destinations are updated
      according to Section 8.5.

8.7.  Datagram Forwarding

   In IPv4 networks, datagrams are forwarded using loose source routing
   as specified in Section 3.1 of [RFC0791].

   In IPv6 networks, datagrams are forwarded using strict source routing
   as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC6554].

9.  Configuration Parameters

   This section gives default values and guideline for setting
   parameters defined in Section 5.  Network administrators may wish to
   change certain, or all the parameters for different network
   scenarios.  As an experimental track protocol, the users of this
   protocol are also encouraged to explore different parameter setting
   in various network environments, and provide feedback.

   o  NUMBER_OF_PATHS := 3.  This parameter defines the number of
      parallel paths used in datagram forwarding.  Setting it to one
      makes the specification identical to OLSRv2.  Setting it to too
      large values may lead to unnecessary computational overhead and
      inferior paths.

   o  MAX_SRC_HOPS := 10, for IPv4 networks.  For IPv6 networks, it MUST
      be set to 0, i.e., no constraint on maximum number of hops.

   o  CUTOFF_RATIO := 1.5.  It MUST be strictly greater than 1.

   o  SR_TC_INTERVAL := 10 x TC_INTERVAL.  It SHOULD be significantly
      greater than TC_INTERVAL to reduce unnecessary TC message

   o  SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME := 3 x SR_TC_INTERVAL SR_TC_INTERVAL.  It MUST be greater than

   If Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is applied:

   o  fp(c) := 4*c, where c is the original metric of the link.

   o  fe(c) := 2*c, where c is the original metric of the link.

   The setting of metric functions fp and fc defines the preference of
   obtained multiple disjoint paths.  If id is the identity function,
   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 node-disjoint;

   o  if id<fe<fp: paths also tend to be node-disjoint, but when is not
      possible they tend to be arc disjoint.

10.  Implementation Status

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].  The
   description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
   the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
   Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
   does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort has
   been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
   by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not be
   construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may

   According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

   Until April 2015, there are 3 open source implementations of the
   protocol specified in this document, for both testbed and simulation

10.1.  Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2

   The implementation is conducted by University of Nantes, France, and
   is based on Niigata University's nOLSRv2 implementation.  It is an
   open source implementation.  The code is available at and .

   It can be used for Qualnet simulations, and be exported to run in a
   testbed.  All the specification is implemented in this

   Implementation experience and test data can be found at [ADHOC11].

10.2.  Multi-path extension based on olsrd

   The implementation is conducted under SEREADMO (Securite des Reseaux
   Ad Hoc & Mojette) project, and supported by French research agency
   (RNRT2803).  It is based on olsrd (
   implementation, and is open sourced.  The code is available at and .

   The implementation is for testing the specification in the field.
   All the specification is implemented in this implementation.

   Implementation experience and test data can be found at [ADHOC11] and

10.3.  Multi-path extension based on umOLSR

   The implementation is conducted by University of Nantes, France, and
   is based on um-olsr implementation
   (  The code is
   available at and under GNU GPL

   The implementation is for network simulation for NS2 network
   simulator.  All the specification is implemented in this

   Implementation experience and test data can be found at [WCNC08].

11.  Security Considerations

   As an extension of [RFC7181], the security considerations and
   security architecture illustrated in [RFC7181] are applicable to this
   MP-OLSRv2 specification.  The implementations without security
   mechanisms are vulnerable to threats discussed in

   In a mixed network with OLSRv2-only routers, a compromised router can
   add SOURCE_ROUTE TLVs in its TC and HELLO messages, which will make
   other MP-OLSR Routing Process believes that it supports source
   routing.  This will increase the the possibility of being chosen as
   MPRs and be put into the source routing header.  The former will make
   it possible to manipulate the flooding of TC messages and the latter
   will make the datagram pass through the compromised router.

   As [RFC7181], a conformant implementation of MP-OLSRv2 MUST, at
   minimum, implement the security mechanisms specified in [RFC7183] to
   provide integrity and replay protection of routing control messages.

   Compared to OLSRv2, the use of source routing header in this
   specification introduces vulnerabilities related to source routing
   attacks, which include bypassing filtering devices, bandwidth
   exhaustion of certain routers, etc.  Those attacks are discussed in
   Section 5.1 of [RFC6554] and [RFC5095].

12.  IANA Considerations

   This section adds one new Message TLV, allocated as a new Type
   Extension to an existing Message TLV.

12.1.  Expert Review: Evaluation Guidlines Guidelines

   For the registry where an Expert Review is required, the designated
   expert SHOULD take the same general recommendations into
   consideration as are specified by [RFC5444].

12.2.  Message TLV Types

   This specification updates the Message Type 7 by adding the new Type
   Extension SOURCE_ROUTE, as illustrated in Table 1.

   |    Type   |     Name     |       Description      | Reference     |
   | Extension |              |                        |               |
   |    TBD    | SOURCE_ROUTE |      Indicates the     | This          |
   |           |              |    originator of the   | specification |
   |           |              |    message supports    |               |
   |           |              |      source route      |               |
   |           |              | forwarding.  No value. |               |

      Table 1: SOURCE_ROUTE type for RFC 5444 Type 7 Message TLV Type

13.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Sylvain David, Asmaa Adnane, Eddy
   Cizeron, Salima Hamma, Pascal Lesage and Xavier Lecourtier for their
   efforts in developing, implementing and testing the specification.
   The authors also appreciate valuable comments and discussions from
   Thomas Clausen, Ulrich Herberg, Justin Dean, Geoff Ladwig, Henning
   Rogge, Christopher Dearlove and Marcus Barkowsky.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC5444]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih,
              "Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message
              Format", RFC 5444, DOI 10.17487/RFC5444, February 2009,

   [RFC6130]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc
              Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
              RFC 6130, DOI 10.17487/RFC6130, April 2011,

   [RFC6554]  Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
              Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
              for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,

   [RFC7181]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
              RFC 7181, DOI 10.17487/RFC7181, April 2014,

   [RFC7183]  Herberg, U., Dearlove, C., and T. Clausen, "Integrity
              Protection for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
              and Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2
              (OLSRv2)", RFC 7183, DOI 10.17487/RFC7183, April 2014,

14.2.  Informative References

   [ADHOC11]  Yi, J., Adnane, A-H., David, S., and B. Parrein,
              "Multipath optimized link state routing for mobile ad hoc
              networks", In Elsevier Ad Hoc Journal, vol.9, n. 1, 28-47,
              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.

              Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Packet Sequence Number based
              directional airtime metric for OLSRv2",
              draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-12 (work in progress),
              December 2015.

              Clausen, T., Herberg, U., and J. Yi, "Security Threats for
              the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2
              (OLSRv2)", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats-01 draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats-02 (work in
              progress), November 2015. May 2016.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,

   [RFC2501]  Corson, S. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
              (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
              Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2501, January 1999,

   [RFC2991]  Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
              Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2991, November 2000,

   [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,

   [RFC6982]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,

   [RFC7722]  Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Multi-Topology Extension for
              the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2
              (OLSRv2)", RFC 7722, DOI 10.17487/RFC7722, December 2015,

   [RFC7779]  Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Directional Airtime Metric
              Based on Packet Sequence Numbers for Optimized Link State
              Routing Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7779, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC7779, April 2016,

   [WCNC08]   Yi, J., Cizeron, E., Hamma, S., and B. Parrein,
              "Simulation and performance analysis of MP-OLSR for mobile
              ad hoc networks", In Proceeding of IEEE Wireless
              Communications and Networking Conference, 2008.

Appendix A.  Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm

   This appendix gives two examples of multi-path Dijkstra algorithm.

   A network topology is depicted in Figure 1. 2.

                             (1)   / \     \
                            /     /   \     \
                           S     (2)   (1)   D
                            \   /       \   /
                           (1) /         \ / (2)

                                 Figure 1 2

   The capital letters are name of routers.  An arbitrary metric with
   value between 1 and 3 is used.  The initial metrics of all the links
   are indicated in the parenthesis.  The incremental functions fp(c)=4c
   and fe(c)=2c are used in this example.  Two paths from router S to
   router D are demanded.

   On the first run of the Dijkstra algorithm, the shortest path S->A->D
   with metric 3 is obtained.

   The incremental function fp is applied to increase the metric of the
   link S-A and A-D. fe is applied to increase the metric of the link
   A-B and A-C.  Figure 2 3 shows the link metrics after the punishment.

                             (4)   / \     \
                            /     /   \     \
                           S     (4)   (2)   D
                            \   /       \   /
                           (1) /         \ / (2)

                                 Figure 2 3

   On the second run of the Dijkstra algorithm, the second path
   S->B->C->D with metric 6 is obtained.

   As mentioned in Section 8.5, the Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm does
   not guarantee strict disjoint path to avoid choosing inferior paths.
   For example, given the topology in Figure 3, 4, two paths from node S to
   D are desired.  On the top of the figure, there is a high cost path
   between S and D.

   If a algorithm tries to obtain strict disjoint paths, the two paths
   obtained will be S--B--D and S--(high cost path)--D, which are
   extremely unbalanced.  It is undesired because it will cause huge
   delay variance between the paths.  By using the Multi-path Dijkstra
   algorithm, which is based on the punishing scheme, S--B--D and
   S--B--C--D will be obtained.

                             --high cost path-
                            /                 \
                           /                   \
                                 \           /

                                 Figure 3 4

Authors' Addresses

   Jiazi Yi
   Ecole Polytechnique
   91128 Palaiseau Cedex,

   Phone: +33 (0) 1 77 57 80 85

   Benoit Parrein
   University of Nantes
   IRCCyN lab - IVC team
   Polytech Nantes, rue Christian Pauc, BP50609
   44306 Nantes cedex 3

   Phone: +33 (0) 240 683 050 2 40 68 30 50