draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-09.txt   draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-10.txt 
Network Working Group J. Yi Network Working Group J. Yi
Internet-Draft Ecole Polytechnique Internet-Draft Ecole Polytechnique
Intended status: Experimental B. Parrein Intended status: Experimental B. Parrein
Expires: December 10, 2016 University of Nantes Expires: January 6, 2017 University of Nantes
June 8, 2016 July 5, 2016
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-09 draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-10
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 December 10, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation and Experiments to Be Conducted . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Motivation and Experiments to Be Conducted . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Protocol Overview and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Protocol Overview and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Parameters and Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Parameters and Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Router Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Router Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Packets and Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Packets and Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. HELLO and TC messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. HELLO and TC messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1. SOURCE_ROUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1.1. SOURCE_ROUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Datagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Datagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. Source Routing Header in IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2.1. Source Routing Header in IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.2. Source Routing Header in IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2.2. Source Routing Header in IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. SR-OLSRv2 Router Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. SR-OLSRv2 Router Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Multi-path Routing Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Multi-path Routing Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. HELLO and TC Message Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. HELLO and TC Message Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. HELLO and TC Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. HELLO and TC Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. MPR Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.3. MPR Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.4. Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator . . . . . 11 8.4. Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator . . . . . 12
8.5. Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.5. Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.5.1. Requirements of Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . 12 8.5.1. Requirements of Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . 13
8.5.2. Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.5.2. Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.6. Multi-path Routing Set Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.6. Multi-path Routing Set Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.7. Datagram Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.7. Datagram Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2 . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.1. Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2 . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. Message TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.2. Message TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.3. Routing Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . 21 Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
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.
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
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 in combination o An application of this extension is in combination with Forward
with Forward Error Correction (FEC) coding. Because the packet Error Correction (FEC) coding applied across packets (erasure
drop is normally bursty in a path (for example, due to route coding). Because the packet drop is normally bursty in a path
failure), FEC coding is less effective in single path routing (for example, due to route failure), erasure coding is less
protocols. By providing multiple disjoint paths, the application effective in single path routing protocols. By providing multiple
of FEC coding with multi-path protocol is more resilient to disjoint paths, the application of erasure coding with multi-path
routing failures. protocol is more resilient to routing failures.
While in existing deployments, running code and simulations have While in existing deployments, running code and simulations have
proven the interest of multi-path extension for OLSRv2 in certain proven the interest of multi-path extension for OLSRv2 in certain
networks, more experiments and experiences are still needed to networks, more experiments and experiences are still needed to
understand the effects of the protocol. The multi-path extension for understand the effects of the protocol. The multi-path extension for
OLSRv2 is expected to be revised and improved to the Standard Track, OLSRv2 is expected to be revised and improved to the Standard Track,
once sufficient operational experience is obtained. Other than once sufficient operational experience is obtained. Other than
general experiences including the protocol specification, general experiences including the protocol specification,
interoperability with original OLSRv2 implementations, the interoperability with original OLSRv2 implementations, the
experiences in the following aspects are highly appreciated: experiences in the following aspects are highly appreciated:
skipping to change at page 4, line 26 skipping to change at page 4, line 26
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 used in the metric functions. Metric functions are o Optimal values used in the metric functions. Metric functions are
applied to increase the metric of used links and nodes so as to applied to increase the metric of used links and nodes so as to
obtain disjoint paths. What kind of disjointness is desired obtain disjoint paths. What kind of disjointness is desired
(node-disjoint or link-disjoint) may depend on the layer 2 (node-disjoint or link-disjoint) may depend on the layer 2
protocol used, and can be achieved by setting different sets of protocol used, and can be achieved by setting different sets of
metric functions. metric functions.
o Use of other metric types. This multi-path extension can be used o Use of different metric types. This multi-path extension can be
not only for hop-count metric type, but also other metric types used with metric types that meet the requirement of OLSRv2, such
that meet the requirement of OLSRv2, such as [RFC7779]. The as [RFC7779]. The metric type used has also co-relation with the
metric type used has also co-relation with the choice of metric choice of metric functions as indicated in the previous bullet
functions as indicated in the previous bullet point. point.
o The impact of partial topology information to the multi-path o The impact of partial topology information to the multi-path
calculation. OLSRv2 maintains a partial topology information base calculation. OLSRv2 maintains a partial topology information base
to reduce protocol overhead. Although with existing experience, to reduce protocol overhead. Although with existing experience,
multiple paths can be obtained even with such partial information, multiple paths can be obtained even with such partial information,
the calculation might be impacted, depending on the MPR selection the calculation might be impacted, depending on the MPR selection
algorithm used. algorithm used.
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 13
transfer more datagrams compared to paths with higher metrics. transfer more datagrams compared to paths with higher metrics.
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 experiment especially variable latencies. Although current experiment
results 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 erasure coding, especially for services like video/audio
like video/audio streaming. The combination of FEC coding streaming. By definition, erasure coding is insensitive to the
mechanisms and this extension is thus encouraged. By applying FEC packet misordering. The combination of erasure coding mechanisms
coding, the issue of packet re-ordering can be alleviated. and this extension is thus encouraged.
o Different algorithms to obtain multiple paths, other than the o Different algorithms to obtain multiple paths, other than the
default Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm introduced in this default Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm introduced in this
specification. specification.
o The use of multi-topology information. By using [RFC7722], o The use of multi-topology information. By using [RFC7722],
multiple topologies using different metric types can be obtained. multiple topologies using different metric types can be obtained.
It is also encouraged to experiment the use of multiple metrics It is also encouraged to experiment with the use of multiple
for building multiple paths. metrics for building multiple 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 49 skipping to change at page 5, line 49
without multi-path extension specified in this document. without multi-path extension specified in this document.
MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process - The multi-path routing process based on MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process - The multi-path routing process based on
this 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 designed
for networks with dynamic topology by avoiding single route failure.
MP-OLSRv2 is specially designed for networks with dynamic topology It can also provide higher aggregated throughput and load balancing.
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 In a router supporting MP-OLSRv2, MP-OLSRv2 does not necessarily
replace OLSRv2 completely. The extension can be applied for certain replace OLSRv2 completely. The extension can be applied for certain
applications that are suitable for multi-path routing (mainly video applications that are suitable for multi-path routing (mainly video
or audio streams), based on the information such as DiffServ Code or audio streams), based on the information such as DiffServ Code
Point [RFC2474]. Point [RFC2474].
Compared to OLSRv2, this extension does not introduce new message Compared to OLSRv2, this extension does not introduce new message
type in the air. A new Message TLV type is introduced to identify type in the air. A new Message TLV type is introduced to identify
the routers that support forwarding based on source route header. It the routers that support forwarding based on source route header. It
is interoperable with OLSRv2 implementations that do not have this is interoperable with OLSRv2 implementations that do not have this
extension. extension.
MP-OLSRv2 forwards datagrams using the source routing header. For MP-OLSRv2 supports two different, but interoperable multi-path
IPv4 networks, implementation of loose source routing is required calculation approaches: proactive and reactive. In the proactive
following [RFC0791]. For IPv6 networks, implementation of strict calculation, the paths to all the destinations are calculated before
source routing is required following [RFC6554]. needed. In the reactive calculation, only the paths to desired
destination(s) are calculated on demand. The proactive approach
requires more computational resources than the reactive one. The
reactive approach requires the IP forwarding plane to trigger the
multi-path calculation.
MP-OLSRv2 forwards datagrams using the source routing header. As
there are multiple paths to each destination, MP-OLSRv2 requires the
IP forwarding plane to be able to choose which source route to be put
in the source routing header based on the path scheduler defined by
MP-OLSRv2. For IPv4 networks, implementation of loose source routing
is required following [RFC0791]. For IPv6 networks, implementation
of strict source routing is required following the source routing
header generation and processing defined in [RFC6554].
4. Protocol Overview and Functioning 4. Protocol Overview and Functioning
This specification requires OLSRv2 [RFC7181] to: This specification uses OLSRv2 [RFC7181] to:
o Identify all the reachable routers in the network. o Identify all the reachable routers in the network.
o Identify a sufficient subset of links in the networks, so that o Identify a sufficient subset of links in the networks, so that
routes can be calculated to all reachable destinations. routes can be calculated to all reachable destinations.
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
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at page 7, line 18
maintained. It may either be proactively calculated or reactively maintained. It may either be proactively calculated or reactively
calculated: calculated:
o In the proactive approach, multiple paths to all possible o In the proactive approach, multiple paths to all possible
destinations are calculated and updated based on control message destinations are calculated and updated based on control message
exchange. The routes are thus available before they are actually exchange. The routes are thus available before they are actually
needed. needed.
o In the reactive approach, a multi-path algorithm is invoked on 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 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 source to the destination, and there is no available Routing Tuple
in the Multi-path Routing Set. in the Multi-path Routing Set. This requires the IP forwarding
information base to trigger the multi-path calculation specified
in Section 8.5 when no Multi-path Routing Tuple is available.
Routers in the same network may choose either proactive or reactive Routers in the same network may choose either proactive or reactive
multi-path calculation independently according to their computation multi-path calculation independently according to their computation
resources. The Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm (defined in resources. The Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm (defined in
Section 8.5) is introduced as the default algorithm to generate Section 8.5) is introduced as the default algorithm to generate
multiple disjoint paths from a source to a destination, and such multiple disjoint paths from a source to a destination, and such
information is kept in the Multi-path 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 38 skipping to change at page 7, line 50
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. A value set zero means there is no source routing header. A value set zero means there is no
limitation on the maximum number of hops. In an IPv6 network, it 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 MUST be set to 0. In an IPv4 network, it MUST be strictly less
than 11. than 11 due to the limit of the IPv4 header.
CUTOFF_RATIO The ratio that defines the maximum metric of a path CUTOFF_RATIO The ratio that defines the maximum metric of a path
compared to the shortest path kept in the OLSRv2 Routing Set. For compared to the shortest path kept in the OLSRv2 Routing Set. For
example, the metric to a destination is R_metric based on the example, the metric to a destination is R_metric based on the
Routing Set. Then the maximum metric allowed for a path is Routing Set. Then the maximum metric allowed for a path is
CUTOFF_RATIO * R_metric. CUTOFF_RATIO MUST be strictly greater CUTOFF_RATIO * R_metric. CUTOFF_RATIO MUST be equal to or greater
than 1. than 1. Note that setting the value to 1 means looking for equal
length paths, which may not be possible in some networks.
SR_TC_INTERVAL The maximum time between the transmission of two SR_TC_INTERVAL The maximum time between the transmission of two
successive TC messages by a MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process. successive TC messages by a MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process.
SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME It is the minimal time that a SR-OLSRv2 Router SR_HOLD_TIME The minimal time that a SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuple SHOULD
Tuple SHOULD be kept in the SR-OLSRv2 Router Set. 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 this section. header is defined in this section.
6.1. HELLO and TC messages 6.1. HELLO and TC messages
skipping to change at page 8, line 46 skipping to change at page 9, line 9
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 exactly one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV. MUST have exactly one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV.
Every HELLO or TC message generated by an 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. messages.
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
loose source route header. loose source route header.
6.2.2. Source Routing Header in IPv6 6.2.2. Source Routing Header in IPv6
skipping to change at page 9, line 16 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
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
loose 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 section 3 of [RFC6554], but with
3. IPv6 Routing Type 254 (experimental).
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, a Multipath Information base is defined in [RFC7181]. Additionally, a Multipath Information Base is
used for this specification. It includes the protocol sets as used for this specification. It includes the protocol sets as
defined below. defined below.
7.1. SR-OLSRv2 Router Set 7.1. SR-OLSRv2 Router Set
The SR-OLSRv2 Router Set records the routers that support source- The SR-OLSRv2 Router Set records the routers that support source-
route forwarding. This includes 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. The set consists of SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuples: support. The set consists of SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuples:
(SR_OLSR_addr, SR_OLSR_valid_time) (SR_addr, SR_time)
where: where:
SR_OLSR_addr - it is the network address of the router that SR_addr - is the network address of the router that supports
supports source-route forwarding; source-route forwarding;
SR_OLSR_valid_time - it is the time until which the SR-OLSRv2 SR_time - is the time until which the SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuples is
Router Tuples is considered valid. considered valid.
7.2. Multi-path Routing Set 7.2. Multi-path Routing Set
The Multi-path Routing Set records the full path information of The Multi-path Routing Set records the full path information of
different paths to the destination. It consists of Multi-path different paths to the destination. It consists of Multi-path
Routing Tuples: Routing Tuples:
(MR_dest_addr, MR_path_set) (MR_dest_addr, MR_path_set)
where: where:
MR_dest_addr - it is the network address of the destination, either MR_dest_addr - 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;
MP_path_set - it contains the multiple paths to the destination. MP_path_set - contains the multiple paths to the destination. It
It consists of a set of Path Tuples. consists of a set of Path Tuples.
Each Path Tuple is defined as: Each Path Tuple is defined as:
(PT_metric, PT_address[1], PT_address[2], ..., PT_address[n]) (PT_metric, PT_address[1], PT_address[2], ..., PT_address[n])
where: where:
PT_metric - the metric of the path to the destination, measured in PT_metric - is the metric of the path to the destination, measured
LINK_METRIC_TYPE defined in [RFC7181]; in LINK_METRIC_TYPE defined in [RFC7181];
PT_address[1...n] - the addresses of intermediate routers to be PT_address[1...n] - are the addresses of intermediate routers to be
visited numbered from 1 to n. visited numbered from 1 to n, where n is the number of routers in
the path, i.e., the hop count.
8. Protocol Details 8. Protocol Details
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 messages are generated according to the Section 15.1 of HELLO messages are generated according to Section 15.1 of [RFC7181].
[RFC7181].
TC message are generated according to the Section 16.1 of [RFC7181]. TC message are generated according to Section 16.1 of [RFC7181]. As
As least one TC message MUST be generated by an MP-OLSRv2 Routing least one TC message MUST be generated by an MP-OLSRv2 Routing
Process during SR_TC_INTERVAL. Please note that the TC message Process during SR_TC_INTERVAL. Please note that the TC message
generation based on SR_TC_INTERVAL does not replace the ordinary TC generation based on SR_TC_INTERVAL does not replace the ordinary TC
message generation specified in [RFC7181] and does not carry any message generation specified in [RFC7181] and does not carry any
address. This is due to the fact that not all routers will generate advertised neighbor addresses. This is due to the fact that not all
TC messages based on OLSRv2. The TC generation based on routers will generate TC messages based on OLSRv2. The TC generation
SR_TC_INTERVAL serves for those routers to advertise SOURCE_ROUTE TLV based on SR_TC_INTERVAL serves for those routers to advertise
so that the other routers can be aware of the source-route enabled SOURCE_ROUTE TLV so that the other routers can be aware of the
routers so as to be used as destinations of multipath routing. The source-route enabled routers so as to be used as destinations of
SR_TC_INTERVAL is set to a longer value than TC_INTERVAL. 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 := For both TC and HELLO messages, a single Message TLV with Type :=
SOURCE_ROUTE MUST be added to the message. SOURCE_ROUTE MUST be added to the 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 section 15.3 and
16.3 of [RFC7181]. 16.3 of [RFC7181].
For every HELLO or TC message received, if there is a Message TLV For every HELLO or TC message received, if there is a Message TLV
with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE, create or update (if the tuple exists with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE, create or update (if the Tuple exists
already) the SR-OLSR Router Tuple with already) the SR-OLSR Router Tuple with
o SR_OLSR_addr := originator of the HELLO or TC message o SR_addr := originator address of the HELLO or TC message
o SR_OLSR_valid_time := current_time + SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME. o SR_time := current_time + SR_HOLD_TIME.
8.3. MPR Selection 8.3. MPR Selection
Each MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process selects routing MPRs and flooding MPRs Each MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process selects routing MPRs and flooding MPRs
following Section 18 of [RFC7181]. In a mixed network with OLSRv2- following Section 18 of [RFC7181]. In a mixed network with OLSRv2-
only routers, the following considerations apply when calculating only routers, the following considerations apply when calculating
MPRs: MPRs:
o MP-OLSR routers SHOULD be preferred as routing MPRs. o MP-OLSR routers SHOULD be preferred as routing MPRs.
skipping to change at page 12, line 11 skipping to change at page 12, line 28
If no matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is found and the Multi-path If no matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is found and the Multi-path
Routing Set is maintained reactively, the multi-path algorithm Routing Set is maintained reactively, the multi-path algorithm
defined in Section 8.5 is invoked, to calculate the Multi-path defined in Section 8.5 is invoked, to calculate the Multi-path
Routing Tuple to the destination. If the calculation does not return Routing Tuple to the destination. If the calculation does not return
any Multi-path Routing Tuple, the following steps are aborted and the any Multi-path Routing Tuple, the following steps are aborted and the
datagram is forwarded following OLSRv2 routing process. datagram is forwarded following OLSRv2 routing process.
If a matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is obtained, the Path Tuples If a matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is obtained, the Path Tuples
of the Multi-path Routing Tuple are applied to the datagrams using of the Multi-path Routing Tuple are applied to the datagrams using
Round-robin scheduling. For example, they are 2 path tuples (Path-1, Round-robin scheduling. For example, they are 2 path Tuples (Path-1,
Path-2) for destination router D. A series of datagrams (Packet-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 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. chosen for Packet-1, Path-2 for Packet-2, Path-1 for Packet 3, etc.
Other path scheduling mechanisms are also possible and will not
impact the interoperability of different implementations.
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 the source routing header. For IPv6 added to the datagram header as the source routing header. For IPv6
networks, strict source routing is used, thus all the intermediate networks, strict source routing is used, thus all the intermediate
routers in the path are stored in the source routing header following routers in the path are stored in the source routing header following
[RFC6554]. For IPv4 networks, loose source routing is used, with format defined in section 3 of [RFC6554], except the Routing Type
following rules: field is set to 254 (experimental).
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 o Only the addresses that exist in SR-OLSR Router Set can be added
to the 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. The key routers can be the "key" routers in the path are kept. By default, the key
chosen based on the capacity of the routers (e.g., battery life) routers are uniformly chosen in the path. If further information
or the router's willingness in forwarding data. If no such such as capacity of the routers (e.g., battery life) or the
information is available, the key routers are uniformly chosen in routers' willingness in forwarding data is available, the routers
the path. with higher capacity and willingness 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.
8.5. Multi-path Calculation 8.5. Multi-path Calculation
8.5.1. Requirements of Multi-path Calculation 8.5.1. Requirements of Multi-path Calculation
The Multi-path Routing Set maintains the information of multiple The Multi-path Routing Set maintains the information of multiple
paths the the destination. The tuples are generated based on a paths the the destination. The Tuples are generated based on a
multi-path algorithm. multi-path algorithm.
For each path to a destination, the algorithm must provide: For each path to a destination, the algorithm must provide:
o The metric of the path to the destination, o The metric of the path to the destination,
o The list of intermediate routers on the path. o The list of intermediate routers on the path.
For IPv6 networks, as strict source routing is used, only the routers For IPv6 networks, as strict source routing is used, only the routers
that exist in SR-OLSRv2 Router Set are considered in the path that exist in SR-OLSRv2 Router Set are considered in the path
skipping to change at page 13, line 15 skipping to change at page 13, line 36
exist in the path. exist in the path.
After the calculation of multiple paths, the metric of paths (denoted 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 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 OLSRv2 Routing Tuple ([RFC7181]) to the same destination. If the
metric c_i is greater than R_metric * CUTOFF_RATIO, the corresponding 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 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 metrics less than R_metric * CUTOFF_RATIO, the router SHOULD fall
back to OLSRv2 Routing Process without using multipath routing. This back to OLSRv2 Routing Process without using multipath routing. This
can happen if there are too much OLSRv2-only routers in the network, can happen if there are too much OLSRv2-only routers in the network,
and requiring multipath routing brutally may result in inferior and requiring multipath routing may result in inferior paths.
paths.
By invoking the multi-path algorithm, NUMBER_OF_PATHS paths are By invoking the multi-path algorithm, NUMBER_OF_PATHS paths are
obtained and added to the Multi-path Routing Set, by creating a obtained and added to the Multi-path Routing Set, by creating a
Multi-path Routing Tuple with: Multi-path Routing Tuple with:
o MR_dest_addr := destination of the datagram o MR_dest_addr := destination of the datagram
o A MP_path_set with calculated Path Tuples. Each Path Tuple o A MP_path_set with calculated Path Tuples. Each Path Tuple
corresponds to a path obtained in Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm, corresponds to a path obtained in Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm,
with PT_metric := metric of the calculated path and with PT_metric := metric of the calculated path and
skipping to change at page 15, line 7 skipping to change at page 15, line 31
The Multi-path Routing Set MUST be updated when the Local Information The Multi-path Routing Set MUST be updated when the Local Information
Base, the Neighborhood Information Base, or the Topology Information Base, the Neighborhood Information Base, or the Topology Information
Base indicate a change (including of any potentially used outgoing Base indicate a change (including of any potentially used outgoing
neighbor metric values) of the known symmetric links and/or attached neighbor metric values) of the known symmetric links and/or attached
networks in the MANET, hence changing the Topology Graph, as networks in the MANET, hence changing the Topology Graph, as
described in section 17.7 of [RFC7181]. How the Multi-path Routing described in section 17.7 of [RFC7181]. How the Multi-path Routing
Set is updated depends on the set is maintained reactively or Set is updated depends on the set is maintained reactively or
proactively: proactively:
o In reactive mode, all the tuples in the Multi-path Routing Set are o In reactive mode, all the Tuples in the Multi-path Routing Set are
removed. removed. The new arriving datagrams will be processed as
specified in Section 8.4;
o In proactive mode, the route to all the destinations are updated o In proactive mode, the route to all the destinations are updated
according to Section 8.5. according to Section 8.5.
8.7. Datagram Forwarding 8.7. Datagram Forwarding
In IPv4 networks, datagrams are forwarded using loose source routing In IPv4 networks, datagrams are forwarded using loose source routing
as specified in Section 3.1 of [RFC0791]. as specified in Section 3.1 of [RFC0791].
In IPv6 networks, datagrams are forwarded using strict source routing In IPv6 networks, datagrams are forwarded using strict source routing
as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC6554]. as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC6554], except the applied routers
are MP-OLSRv2 routers rather than RPL routers. The last hop of the
source route MUST remove the source routing 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 administrators 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 protocol, the users of this protocol
protocol are also encouraged to explore different parameter setting are also encouraged to explore different parameter setting in various
in various network environments, and provide feedback. 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
large values may lead to unnecessary computational overhead and large values may lead to unnecessary computational overhead and
inferior paths. inferior paths.
o MAX_SRC_HOPS := 10, for IPv4 networks. For IPv6 networks, it MUST 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. 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 CUTOFF_RATIO := 1.5. It MUST be strictly greater than 1.
o SR_TC_INTERVAL := 10 x TC_INTERVAL. It SHOULD be significantly o SR_TC_INTERVAL := 10 x TC_INTERVAL. It SHOULD be significantly
greater than TC_INTERVAL to reduce unnecessary TC message greater than TC_INTERVAL to reduce unnecessary TC message
generations. generations.
o SR_OLSR_HOLD_TIME := 3 x SR_TC_INTERVAL. It MUST be greater than o SR_HOLD_TIME := 3 x SR_TC_INTERVAL. It MUST be greater than
SR_TC_INTERVAL. SR_TC_INTERVAL.
If Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is applied: If Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is applied:
o fp(c) := 4*c, where c is the original metric of the link. 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. 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 The setting of metric functions fp and fc defines the preference of
obtained multiple disjoint paths. If id is the identity function, obtained multiple disjoint paths. If id is the identity function,
i.e., fp(c)=c, 3 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: only increase the metric of related links;
o if id<fe=fp: paths tend to be node-disjoint; o if id<fe=fp: apply equal increase to the metric of related nodes
and links;
o if id<fe<fp: paths also tend to be node-disjoint, but when is not o if id<fe<fp: apply more increase to the metric of related links.
possible they tend to be arc disjoint.
Increasing the metric of related links or nodes means avoiding the
use of such links or nodes in the next path to be calculated.
10. Implementation Status 10. Implementation Status
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and based on a proposal described in [RFC6982]. The Internet-Draft, and based on a proposal described in [RFC6982]. The
description of implementations in this section is intended to assist description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has
skipping to change at page 18, line 19 skipping to change at page 18, line 47
will make the datagram pass through the compromised router. will make the datagram pass through the compromised router.
As [RFC7181], a conformant implementation of MP-OLSRv2 MUST, at As [RFC7181], a conformant implementation of MP-OLSRv2 MUST, at
minimum, implement the security mechanisms specified in [RFC7183] to minimum, implement the security mechanisms specified in [RFC7183] to
provide integrity and replay protection of routing control messages. provide integrity and replay protection of routing control messages.
Compared to OLSRv2, the use of source routing header in this Compared to OLSRv2, the use of source routing header in this
specification introduces vulnerabilities related to source routing specification introduces vulnerabilities related to source routing
attacks, which include bypassing filtering devices, bandwidth attacks, which include bypassing filtering devices, bandwidth
exhaustion of certain routers, etc. Those attacks are discussed in exhaustion of certain routers, etc. Those attacks are discussed in
Section 5.1 of [RFC6554] and [RFC5095]. Section 5.1 of [RFC6554] and [RFC5095]. The influence is limited to
the OLSRv2/MP-OLSRv2 routing domain, because the source routing
header is used only in the current routing domain.
12. IANA Considerations 12. IANA Considerations
This section adds one new Message TLV, allocated as a new Type This section adds one new Message TLV, allocated as a new Type
Extension to an existing Message TLV. Extension to an existing Message TLV.
12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines 12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines
For the registry where an Expert Review is required, the designated For the registry where an Expert Review is required, the designated
expert SHOULD take the same general recommendations into expert SHOULD take the same general recommendations into
skipping to change at page 19, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 35
| TBD | SOURCE_ROUTE | Indicates the | This | | TBD | SOURCE_ROUTE | Indicates the | This |
| | | originator of the | specification | | | | originator of the | specification |
| | | message supports | | | | | message supports | |
| | | source route | | | | | source route | |
| | | forwarding. No value. | | | | | forwarding. No value. | |
+-----------+--------------+------------------------+---------------+ +-----------+--------------+------------------------+---------------+
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
12.3. Routing Type
This specification uses the experimental value 254 of the IPv6
Routing Type as specified in [RFC5871] for IPv6 source routing.
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 discussions with Thomas Clausen,
Thomas Clausen, Ulrich Herberg, Justin Dean, Geoff Ladwig, Henning Ulrich Herberg, Justin Dean, Geoff Ladwig, Henning Rogge , Marcus
Rogge, Christopher Dearlove and Marcus Barkowsky. Barkowsky and Christopher Dearlove.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <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, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 20, line 51 skipping to change at page 21, line 39
[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, DOI 10.17487/ Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2991, November 2000, RFC2991, November 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>. <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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC5871] Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for
the IPv6 Routing Header", RFC 5871, DOI 10.17487/RFC5871,
May 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5871>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.
[RFC7722] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Multi-Topology Extension for [RFC7722] 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)", RFC 7722, DOI 10.17487/RFC7722, December 2015, (OLSRv2)", RFC 7722, DOI 10.17487/RFC7722, December 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7722>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7722>.
 End of changes. 59 change blocks. 
114 lines changed or deleted 151 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/