draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-11.txt   draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12.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: January 26, 2017 University of Nantes Expires: October 21, 2017 University of Nantes
July 25, 2016 April 19, 2017
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-11 draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a multi-path extension for the Optimized Link This document specifies a multi-path extension for the Optimized Link
State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) to discover multiple State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) to discover multiple
disjoint paths, so as to improve reliability of the OLSRv2 protocol. disjoint paths, so as to improve reliability of the OLSRv2 protocol.
The interoperability with OLSRv2 is retained. The interoperability with OLSRv2 is retained.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 21, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Overview and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Protocol Overview and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Parameters and Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Parameters and Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Router Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Router Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Packets and Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Packets and Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. HELLO and TC messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. HELLO and TC messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.1. SOURCE_ROUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1.1. SOURCE_ROUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Datagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Information Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. SR-OLSRv2 Router Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. SR-OLSRv2 Router Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Multi-path Routing Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. Multi-path Routing Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. HELLO and TC Message Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. HELLO and TC Message Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. HELLO and TC Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. HELLO and TC Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. MPR Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.3. MPR Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.4. Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator . . . . . 12 8.4. Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator . . . . . 12
8.5. Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.5. Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.5.1. Requirements of Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . 13 8.5.1. Requirements of Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . 14
8.5.2. Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.5.2. Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.6. Multi-path Routing Set Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.6. Multi-path Routing Set Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.7. Datagram Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.7. Datagram Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.1. Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2 . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.1. Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2 . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.2. Message TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.2. Message TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.3. Routing Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . 23 Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
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 49 skipping to change at page 3, line 49
aggregated throughput. aggregated throughput.
o Some scenarios may require some routers must (or must not) be o Some scenarios may require some routers must (or must not) be
used. used.
o Having control of the paths at the source benefits the load o Having control of the paths at the source benefits the load
balancing and traffic engineering. balancing and traffic engineering.
o An application of this extension is in combination with Forward o An application of this extension is in combination with Forward
Error Correction (FEC) coding applied across packets (erasure Error Correction (FEC) coding applied across packets (erasure
coding). Because the packet drop is normally bursty in a path coding) [WPMC11]. Because the packet drop is normally bursty in a
(for example, due to route failure), erasure coding is less path (for example, due to route failure), erasure coding is less
effective in single path routing protocols. By providing multiple effective in single path routing protocols. By providing multiple
disjoint paths, the application of erasure coding with multi-path disjoint paths, the application of erasure coding with multi-path
protocol is more resilient to 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 and general experiences including the protocol specification and
interoperability with original OLSRv2 implementations, the interoperability with base OLSRv2 implementations, the experiences in
experiences in the following aspects are highly appreciated: the following aspects are highly appreciated:
o Optimal values for the number of multiple paths (NUMBER_OF_PATHS) o Optimal values for the number of multiple paths (NUMBER_OF_PATHS,
to be used. This depends on the network topology and router Section 5) to be used. This depends on the network topology and
density. router 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 different metric types. This multi-path extension can be o Use of different metric types. This multi-path extension can be
used with metric types that meet the requirement of OLSRv2, such used with metric types that meet the requirement of OLSRv2, such
as [RFC7779]. The metric type used has also impact to the choice as [RFC7779]. The metric type used has also impact to the choice
of metric functions as indicated in the previous bullet point. of metric functions as indicated in the previous bullet 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 IPv4 loose source routing. In o Use of IPv6 loose source routing. In the current specification,
some cases, loose source routing is used to reduce overhead or for only strict source routing is used for IPv6 based on [RFC6554].
In [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header], the use of loose source
routing is also proposed in IPv6. In scenarios where the length
of the source routing header is critical, the loose source routing
can be considered.
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 interoperability with OLSRv2 routers. Other than the basic rules
defined in the following of this document, optimal choices of defined in the following of this document, optimal choices of
routers to put in the loose source routing header can be further routers to put in the loose source routing header can be further
studied. studied.
o Different path-selection schedulers. By default, Round-Robin o Different path-selection schedulers. By default, Round-Robin
scheduling is used to select a path to be used for datagrams. In scheduling is used to select a path to be used for datagrams. In
some scenarios, weighted scheduling can be considered: for some scenarios, weighted scheduling can be considered: for
example, the paths with lower metrics (i.e., higher quality) can example, the paths with lower metrics (i.e., higher quality) can
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
erasure coding, especially for services like video/audio erasure coding, especially for services like video/audio streaming
streaming. The combination of erasure coding mechanisms and this [WPMC11]. The combination of erasure coding mechanisms and this
extension is thus encouraged. 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.
Although there is no work defining how this extension can make use Although there is no work defining how this extension can make use
of the multi-topology information base yet, it is encouraged to of the multi-topology information base yet, it is encouraged to
skipping to change at page 5, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
This document uses the terminology and notation defined in [RFC5444], This document uses the terminology and notation defined in [RFC5444],
[RFC6130], [RFC7181]. Additionally, it defines the following [RFC6130], [RFC7181]. Additionally, it defines the following
terminology: terminology:
OLSRv2 Routing Process - The routing process based on [RFC7181], OLSRv2 Routing Process - A routing process based on [RFC7181],
without multi-path extension specified in this document. without multi-path extension specified in this document.
MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process - The multi-path routing process based on MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process - A multi-path routing process based on
this specification as an extension to [RFC7181]. this specification as an extension to [RFC7181].
SR-OLSRv2 Routing Process - A OLSRv2 Routing Process that supports
source routing, or an MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process.
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. MP-OLSRv2 is designed from a source router to a destination router. MP-OLSRv2 is designed
for networks with dynamic topology by avoiding single route failure. for networks with dynamic topology by avoiding single route failure.
It can also provide higher aggregated throughput and load balancing. It can also provide higher aggregated throughput and load balancing.
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. A new Message TLV Type is introduced to identify the routers type. A new Message TLV Type is introduced to identify the routers
that support forwarding based on source route header. It is that support forwarding based on source routing header. It is
interoperable with OLSRv2 implementations that do not have this interoperable with OLSRv2 implementations that do not have this
extension. extension: as the MP-OLSRv2 uses source routing, in IPv4 networks the
interoperability is achieved by using loose source routing header; in
IPv6 networks, it is achieved by eliminating routers that do not
support IPv6 strict source routing.
MP-OLSRv2 supports two different, but interoperable multi-path MP-OLSRv2 supports two different, but interoperable multi-path
calculation approaches: proactive and reactive. In the proactive calculation approaches: proactive and reactive. In the proactive
calculation, the paths to all the destinations are calculated before calculation, the paths to all the destinations are calculated before
needed. In the reactive calculation, only the paths to desired needed. In the reactive calculation, only the paths to desired
destination(s) are calculated on demand. The proactive approach destination(s) are calculated on demand. The proactive approach
requires more computational resources than the reactive one. The requires more computational resources than the reactive one. The
reactive approach requires the IP forwarding plane to trigger the reactive approach requires the IP forwarding plane to trigger the
multi-path calculation. multi-path calculation.
skipping to change at page 7, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
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. This requires the IP forwarding in the Multi-path Routing Set. This requires the IP forwarding
information base to trigger the multi-path calculation specified information base to trigger the multi-path calculation specified
in Section 8.5 when no Multi-path Routing Tuple is available. The in Section 8.5 when no Multi-path Routing Tuple is available. The
reactive operation is local in the router and no message reactive operation is local in the router and no additional
transmission delay is introduced. routing control messages exchange is required. When the paths are
being calculated, the datagrams SHOULD be buffered unless the
router does not have enough memory.
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 8, line 28 skipping to change at page 8, line 39
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 greater than or CUTOFF_RATIO * R_metric. CUTOFF_RATIO MUST be greater than or
equal to 1. Note that setting the value to 1 means looking for equal to 1. Note that setting the value to 1 means looking for
equal length paths, which may not be possible in some networks. 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_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER The multiplier to calculate the minimal time SR_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER The multiplier to calculate the minimal time
that a SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuple SHOULD be kept in the SR-OLSRv2 that a SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuple SHOULD be kept in the SR-OLSRv2
Router Set. Router Set. It is the value of the Message TLV with Type =
SOURCE_ROUTE.
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 obtain network (Topology Control) as defined in OLSRv2 [RFC7181] to obtain network
topology information. For the datagram, to support source routing, a topology information. For the datagram, to support source routing, a
source routing header is added to each datagram routed by this source routing header is added to each datagram routed by this
extension. Depending on the IP version used, the source routing extension. Depending on the IP version used, the source routing
header is defined in this section. header is defined in this section.
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 36
+--------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+ +--------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
| Type | Value | Value | | Type | Value | Value |
| | Length | | | | Length | |
+--------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+ +--------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
| SOURCE_ROUTE | 1 octet | The parameter SR_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER | | SOURCE_ROUTE | 1 octet | The parameter SR_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER |
| | | (unsigned integer) | | | | (unsigned integer) |
+--------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+ +--------------+-----------+----------------------------------------+
Table 1: SOURCE_ROUTE TLV Definition Table 1: SOURCE_ROUTE TLV Definition
Every HELLO or TC message generated by an OLSRv2 Routing Process MAY Every HELLO or TC message generated by an OLSRv2 Routing Process MUST
have one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV, if the OLSRv2 Routing Process supports have exactly one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV, if the OLSRv2 Routing Process
source-route forwarding, and is willing to join the source route supports source-route forwarding, and is willing to join the source
generated by other MP-OLSRv2 Routing Processes. The existence of route generated by other MP-OLSRv2 Routing Processes. The existence
SOURCE_ROUTE TLV MUST be consistent for a specific OLSRv2 Routing 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 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
messages. 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
In IPv6 [RFC2460] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing process employs the In IPv6 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing
source routing header as defined in section 3 of [RFC6554], but with process employs the source routing header as defined in section 3 of
IPv6 Routing Type 254 (experimental). [RFC6554], but with 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.
skipping to change at page 11, line 23 skipping to change at page 11, line 36
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 Section 15.1 of [RFC7181]. HELLO messages are generated according to Section 15.1 of [RFC7181],
plus a single message TLV with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE included.
TC message are generated according to Section 16.1 of [RFC7181]. As TC message are generated according to Section 16.1 of [RFC7181] plus
least one TC message MUST be generated by an MP-OLSRv2 Routing a single message TLV with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE included. At least
Process during SR_TC_INTERVAL. The TC message generation based on one TC message MUST be generated by an MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process
SR_TC_INTERVAL does not replace the ordinary TC message generation during SR_TC_INTERVAL (Section 5). The TC message generation based
on SR_TC_INTERVAL does not replace the ordinary TC message generation
specified in [RFC7181] and MUST not carry any advertised neighbor specified in [RFC7181] and MUST not carry any advertised neighbor
addresses. This is due to the fact that not all routers will addresses. This is due to the fact that not all routers will
generate TC messages based on OLSRv2. The TC generation based on generate TC messages based on OLSRv2. The TC generation based on
SR_TC_INTERVAL serves for those routers to advertise SOURCE_ROUTE TLV 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 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 routers so as to be used as destinations of multipath routing. The
SR_TC_INTERVAL is set to a longer value than TC_INTERVAL. 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 included.
8.2. HELLO and TC Message Processing 8.2. HELLO and TC Message Processing
HELLO and TC messages are processed according to 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 the purpose of this section, the following definitions are used: In addition to the reasons specified in [RFC7181] for discarding a
HELLO message or a TC message on reception, a HELLO or TC message
o "validity time" is calculated from the Message TLV with Type = received MUST be discarded if it has more than one Message TLV with
VALIDITY_TIME of the HELLO message or TC message. Type = SOURCE_ROUTE.
o "source route hold time multiplier" is defined as being the value
of a Message TLV with Type = SOURCE_ROUTE.
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_addr := originator address of the HELLO or TC message o SR_addr := originator address of the HELLO or TC message
o SR_time := current_time + source route hold time multiplier * o SR_time := current_time + SR_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER * validity time
validity time, unless the existed SR_time is greater than the of the TC or HELLO message defined in [RFC7181], unless the
newly calculated the SR_time. existing SR_time is greater than the newly calculated the SR_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-OLSRv2 routers SHOULD be preferred as routing MPRs to increase
the possiblity of finding disjoint paths using MP-OLSRv2 routers.
o The number of routing MPRs that run MP-OLSR Routing Process MUST o The number of routing MPRs that run MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process MUST
be equal or greater than NUMBER_OF_PATHS if there are enough MP- be equal or greater than NUMBER_OF_PATHS if there are enough MP-
OLSR symmetric neighbors. Or else, all the MP-OLSR routers are OLSRv2 symmetric neighbors. Or else, all the MP-OLSRv2 routers
selected as routing MPRs. are selected as routing MPRs.
8.4. Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator 8.4. Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator
If datagrams without source routing header need to be forwarded using If datagrams without source routing header need to be forwarded using
multiple paths (for example, based on the information of DiffServ multiple paths (for example, based on the information of DiffServ
Code Point [RFC2474]), the MP-OLSRv2 routing process will try to find Code Point [RFC2474]), the MP-OLSRv2 routing process will try to find
the Multi-path Routing Tuple where: the Multi-path Routing Tuple where:
o MR_dest_addr = destination of the datagram o MR_dest_addr = destination of the datagram
skipping to change at page 12, line 52 skipping to change at page 13, line 14
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, there are 2 path Tuples
Path-2) for destination router D. A series of datagrams (Packet-1, (Path-1, Path-2) for destination router D. A series of datagrams
Packet-2, Packet-3, ... etc.) are to be sent router D. Path-1 is then (Packet-1, Packet-2, Packet-3, ... etc.) are to be sent router D.
chosen for Packet-1, Path-2 for Packet-2, Path-1 for Packet 3, etc. Path-1 is then chosen for Packet-1, Path-2 for Packet-2, Path-1 for
Other path scheduling mechanisms are also possible and will not Packet 3, etc. Other path scheduling mechanisms are also possible
impact the interoperability of different implementations. and will not impact the interoperability of different
implementations.
The addresses in PT_address[1, ..., n-1] of the chosen Path Tuple are The addresses in PT_address[1, ..., n-1] of the chosen Path Tuple are
thus added to the datagram header as the source routing header. For thus added to the datagram header as the source routing header. For
IPv6 networks, strict source routing is used, thus all the IPv6 networks, strict source routing is used, thus all the
intermediate routers in the path are stored in the source routing intermediate routers in the path are stored in the source routing
header following format defined in section 3 of [RFC6554], except the header following format defined in section 3 of [RFC6554] with
Routing Type field is set to 254 (experimental). Routing Type set to 3.
For IPv4 networks, loose source routing is used, with following For IPv4 networks, loose source routing is used, with following
rules: 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
the "key" routers in the path are kept. By default, the key (Section 5), only the "key" routers in the path are kept. By
routers are uniformly chosen in the path. If further information default, the key routers are uniformly chosen in the path. If
such as capacity of the routers (e.g., battery life) or the further information such as capacity of the routers (e.g., battery
routers' willingness in forwarding data is available, the routers life) or the routers' willingness in forwarding data is available,
with higher capacity and willingness are preferred. the routers 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.
It is RECOMMENDED to use MTU sizes considering the source routing
header to avoid fragmentation. Depending on the size of the routing
domain, the MTU should be at least 1280 + 40 (for outer IP header) +
16 * diameter of the network in number of hops (for source routing
header). If the links in the network have different MTU sizes, by
using technologies like Path MTU Discovery, the routers are able to
be aware of the MTU along the path. The size of the datagram plus
the size of IP headers (including the source routing header) SHOULD
NOT exceed the minimum MTU along the path.
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 to the destination. The Path Tuples of the Multi-path Routing
multi-path algorithm. Set (Section 7.2) are generated based on a 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
calculation, i.e., only the source-routing supported routers can calculation, i.e., only the source-routing supported routers can
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 (Section 5), the
path i SHOULD NOT be used. If less than 2 paths are found with corresponding path i SHOULD NOT be used. If less than 2 paths are
metrics less than R_metric * CUTOFF_RATIO, the router SHOULD fall found with metrics less than R_metric * CUTOFF_RATIO, the router
back to OLSRv2 Routing Process without using multipath routing. This SHOULD fall back to OLSRv2 Routing Process without using multipath
can happen if there are too much OLSRv2-only routers in the network, routing. This can happen if there are too much OLSRv2-only routers
and requiring multipath routing may result in inferior paths. in the network, and requiring multipath routing may result in
inferior 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 PT_address[1, with PT_metric := metric of the calculated path and PT_address[1,
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 15, line 8
8.5.2. Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm 8.5.2. Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm
This section introduces Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm as a default This section introduces Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm as a default
algorithm. It tries to obtain disjoint paths when appropriate, but algorithm. It tries to obtain disjoint paths when appropriate, but
does not guarantee strict disjoint paths. The use of other does not guarantee strict disjoint paths. The use of other
algorithms is not prohibited, as long as the requirements described algorithms is not prohibited, as long as the requirements described
in Section 8.5.1 are met. Using different multi-path algorithms will in Section 8.5.1 are met. Using different multi-path algorithms will
not impact the interoperability. not impact the interoperability.
The general principle of the Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is at step The general principle of the Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm [ADHOC11]
i to look for the shortest path P[i] to the destination d. Compared is using Dijkstra algorithm for multiple iterations, and at iteration
to the original Dijkstra algorithm, the main modification consists in i to look for the shortest path P[i] to the destination d. After
adding two incremental functions named metric functions fp and fe in each iteration, the cost of used links is increased. Compared to the
order to prevent the next steps resulting in similar paths: 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 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 path P[i-1] (with i>1), where c is the value of the
previous metric. This encourages future paths to use different previous metric. This encourages future paths to use different
arcs but not different vertices. arcs but not different vertices.
o fe(c) is used to increase metrics of the arcs that lead to o fe(c) is used to increase metrics of the arcs that lead to
intermediate vertices of the previous path P[i-1] (with i>1), intermediate vertices of the previous path P[i-1] (with i>1),
where c is the value of the previous metric. The "lead to" means 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 that only one vertex of the arc belongs to the previous path
P[i-1], while the the other vertex is not. The "intermediate" P[i-1], while the other vertex is not. The "intermediate" means
means that the source and destination vertices are not considered. that the source and destination vertices are not considered.
Considering the simple example in Figure 1: a path P[i] S--A--D is 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 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 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 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 intermediate vetex of path P[i], and B is not part of P[i]. B--D is
unchanged. unchanged.
B B
/ \ / \
skipping to change at page 17, line 25 skipping to change at page 17, line 46
o if id<fe=fp: apply equal increase to the metric of related nodes o if id<fe=fp: apply equal increase to the metric of related nodes
and links; and links;
o if id<fe<fp: apply more increase to the metric of related links. o if id<fe<fp: apply more increase to the metric of related links.
Increasing the metric of related links or nodes means avoiding the Increasing the metric of related links or nodes means avoiding the
use of such links or nodes in the next path to be calculated. use of such links or nodes in the next path to be calculated.
10. Implementation Status 10. Implementation Status
The RFC Editor is advised to remove the entire section before
publication, as well as the reference to RFC 7942.
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 [RFC7942]. 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
been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be
construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist. exist.
According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
Until April 2015, there are 3 open source implementations of the Until April 2015, there are 3 open source implementations of the
protocol specified in this document, for both testbed and simulation protocol specified in this document, for both testbed and simulation
use. use.
skipping to change at page 19, line 11 skipping to change at page 19, line 33
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
As an extension of [RFC7181], the security considerations and As an extension of [RFC7181], the security considerations and
security architecture illustrated in [RFC7181] are applicable to this security architecture illustrated in [RFC7181] are applicable to this
MP-OLSRv2 specification. The implementations without security MP-OLSRv2 specification. The implementations without security
mechanisms are vulnerable to threats discussed in mechanisms are vulnerable to threats discussed in
[I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats]. [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats].
In a mixed network with OLSRv2-only routers, a compromised router can 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 add SOURCE_ROUTE TLVs in its TC and HELLO messages, which will make
other MP-OLSR Routing Process believes that it supports source other MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process believes that it supports source
routing. This will increase the the possibility of being chosen as routing. This will increase the possibility of being chosen as MPRs
MPRs and be put into the source routing header. The former will make and be put into the source routing header. The former will make it
it possible to manipulate the flooding of TC messages and the latter possible to manipulate the flooding of TC messages and the latter
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.
MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process MUST drop datagrams entering or exiting a
OLSRv2/MP-OLSRv2 routing domain that contain a source routing header.
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]. The influence is limited to Section 5 of [RFC6554] and [RFC5095]. The influence is limited to
the OLSRv2/MP-OLSRv2 routing domain, because the source routing the OLSRv2/MP-OLSRv2 routing domain, because the source routing
header is used only in the current routing domain. header is used only in the current routing domain.
If the multiple paths are calculated reactively, the datagrams SHOULD
be buffered while the paths are being calculated. Because the path
calculation is local and no control message is exchanged, the
buffering time should be trivial. However, depending on the CPU
power and memory of the router, a maximum buffer size SHOULD be set
to avoid occupying too much memory of the router. When the buffer is
full, the ancient datagrams are dropped. A possible attack that a
malicious application could launch is that, it initiates large amount
of datagrams to all the other routers in the network, thus triggering
path calculation to all the other routers and during which, the
datagrams are buffered. This might flush other legitimate datagrams.
But the impact of the attack is transient: once the path calculation
is finished, the datagrams are forwarded and the buffer goes back to
empty.
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
consideration as are specified by [RFC5444]. consideration as are specified by [RFC5444].
skipping to change at page 20, line 23 skipping to change at page 21, line 6
| | | forwarding. The value | | | | | forwarding. The value | |
| | | is a multiplier for | | | | | is a multiplier for | |
| | | calculating the hold | | | | | calculating the hold | |
| | | time of SR-OLSRv2 | | | | | time of SR-OLSRv2 | |
| | | Router Tuples. | | | | | Router Tuples. | |
+-----------+--------------+------------------------+---------------+ +-----------+--------------+------------------------+---------------+
Table 2: SOURCE_ROUTE type for RFC 5444 Type 7 Message TLV Type Table 2: 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 discussions with Thomas Clausen, The authors also appreciate valuable discussions with Thomas Clausen,
Ulrich Herberg, Justin Dean, Geoff Ladwig, Henning Rogge , Marcus Ulrich Herberg, Justin Dean, Geoff Ladwig, Henning Rogge , Marcus
Barkowsky and especially Christopher Dearlove for his multiple rounds Barkowsky and especially Christopher Dearlove for his multiple rounds
of reviews during the working group last calls. of reviews during the working group last calls.
skipping to change at page 21, line 45 skipping to change at page 22, line 24
"Multipath optimized link state routing for mobile ad hoc "Multipath optimized link state routing for mobile ad hoc
networks", In Elsevier Ad Hoc Journal, vol.9, n. 1, 28-47, networks", In Elsevier Ad Hoc Journal, vol.9, n. 1, 28-47,
January, 2011. January, 2011.
[GIIS14] Macedo, R., Melo, R., Santos, A., and M. Nogueria, [GIIS14] Macedo, R., Melo, R., Santos, A., and M. Nogueria,
"Experimental performance comparison of single-path and "Experimental performance comparison of single-path and
multipath routing in VANETs", In Global Information multipath routing in VANETs", In Global Information
Infrastructure and Networking Symposium (GIIS), 2014 , Infrastructure and Networking Symposium (GIIS), 2014 ,
vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 15-19, 2014. vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 15-19, 2014.
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09 (work
in progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Leddy, J., Field, B.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d.,
Matsushima, S., Leung, I., Linkova, J., Aries, E., Kosugi,
T., Vyncke, E., Lebrun, D., Steinberg, D., and R. Raszuk,
"IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)",
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-06 (work in
progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats] [I-D.ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats]
Clausen, T., Herberg, U., and J. Yi, "Security Threats for Clausen, T., Herberg, U., and J. Yi, "Security Threats to
the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2
(OLSRv2)", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats-02 (work in (OLSRv2)", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats-04 (work in
progress), May 2016. progress), January 2017.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2501] Corson, S. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking [RFC2501] Corson, S. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
(MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, DOI 10.17487/ Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, DOI 10.17487/
skipping to change at page 22, line 28 skipping to change at page 23, line 17
[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
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<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>.
[RFC7779] Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Directional Airtime Metric [RFC7779] Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Directional Airtime Metric
Based on Packet Sequence Numbers for Optimized Link State Based on Packet Sequence Numbers for Optimized Link State
Routing Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7779, DOI 10.17487/ Routing Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7779, DOI 10.17487/
RFC7779, April 2016, RFC7779, April 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7779>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7779>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[WCNC08] Yi, J., Cizeron, E., Hamma, S., and B. Parrein, [WCNC08] Yi, J., Cizeron, E., Hamma, S., and B. Parrein,
"Simulation and performance analysis of MP-OLSR for mobile "Simulation and performance analysis of MP-OLSR for mobile
ad hoc networks", In Proceeding of IEEE Wireless ad hoc networks", In Proceeding of IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, 2008. Communications and Networking Conference, 2008.
[WPMC11] Yi, J., Parrein, B., and D. Radu, "Multipath routing
protocol for manet: Application to H.264/SVC video content
delivery", In Proceeding of 14th International Symposium
on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications.
Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm Appendix A. Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm
This appendix gives two examples of multi-path Dijkstra algorithm. This appendix gives two examples of multi-path Dijkstra algorithm.
A network topology is depicted in Figure 2. A network topology is depicted in Figure 2.
.-----A-----(2) .-----A-----(2)
(1) / \ \ (1) / \ \
/ / \ \ / / \ \
S (2) (1) D S (2) (1) D
 End of changes. 56 change blocks. 
131 lines changed or deleted 183 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/