Network Working Group                                              J. Yi
Internet-Draft                                       Ecole Polytechnique
Intended status: Experimental                                 B. Parrein
Expires: January 26, October 21, 2017                           University of Nantes
                                                           July 25, 2016
                                                          April 19, 2017

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


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

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, October 21, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Motivation and Experiments to Be Conducted . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Applicability Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5  6
   4.  Protocol Overview and Functioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6  7
   5.  Parameters and Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7  8
     5.1.  Router Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7  8
   6.  Packets and Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  HELLO and TC messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8  9
       6.1.1.  SOURCE_ROUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Datagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       6.2.1.  Source Routing Header in IPv4  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       6.2.2.  Source Routing Header in IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9 10
   7.  Information Bases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  SR-OLSRv2 Router Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Multi-path Routing Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  HELLO and TC Message Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  HELLO and TC Message Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
     8.3.  MPR Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.4.  Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator  . . . . . 12
     8.5.  Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 14
       8.5.1.  Requirements of Multi-path Calculation . . . . . . . . 13 14
       8.5.2.  Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.6.  Multi-path Routing Set Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 16
     8.7.  Datagram Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. Implementation Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.1. Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     10.2. Multi-path extension based on olsrd  . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     10.3. Multi-path extension based on umOLSR . . . . . . . . . . . 18 19
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 19
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20
     12.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20
     12.2. Message TLV Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     12.3. Routing Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   13. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21
   14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21
     14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21
     14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22
   Appendix A.  Examples of Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25

1.  Introduction

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

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

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

1.1.  Motivation and Experiments to Be Conducted

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

   o  Disjoint paths can avoid single route failures.

   o  Transmitting datagrams through parallel paths can increase
      aggregated throughput.

   o  Some scenarios may require some routers must (or must not) be

   o  Having control of the paths at the source benefits the load
      balancing and traffic engineering.

   o  An application of this extension is in combination with Forward
      Error Correction (FEC) coding applied across packets (erasure
      coding) [WPMC11].  Because the packet drop is normally bursty in a
      path (for example, due to route failure), erasure coding is less
      effective in single path routing protocols.  By providing multiple
      disjoint paths, the application of erasure coding with multi-path
      protocol is more resilient to routing failures.

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

   o  Optimal values for the number of multiple paths (NUMBER_OF_PATHS) (NUMBER_OF_PATHS,
      Section 5) to be used.  This depends on the network topology and
      router density.

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

   o  Use of different metric types.  This multi-path extension can be
      used with metric types that meet the requirement of OLSRv2, such
      as [RFC7779].  The metric type used has also impact to the choice
      of metric functions as indicated in the previous bullet point.

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

   o  Use of IPv6 loose source routing.  In the current specification,
      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 IPv4 loose source routing.  In some
      cases, loose source routing is used to reduce overhead or for
      interoperability with OLSRv2 routers.  Other than the basic rules
      defined in the following of this document, optimal choices of
      routers to put in the loose source routing header can be further

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

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

   o  The disjoint multi-path protocol has interesting application with
      erasure coding, especially for services like video/audio
      streaming. streaming
      [WPMC11].  The combination of erasure coding mechanisms and this
      extension is thus encouraged.

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

   o  The use of multi-topology information.  By using [RFC7722],
      multiple topologies using different metric types can be obtained.
      Although there is no work defining how this extension can make use
      of the multi-topology information base yet, it is encouraged to
      experiment with the use of multiple metrics for building multiple

2.  Terminology

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

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

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

   MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process -  The  A multi-path routing process based on
      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

   As an extension of OLSRv2, this specification is applicable to MANETs
   for which OLSRv2 is applicable (see [RFC7181]).  It can operate on
   single, or multiple interfaces, to discover multiple disjoint paths
   from a source router to a destination router.  MP-OLSRv2 is designed
   for networks with dynamic topology by avoiding single route failure.
   It can also provide higher aggregated throughput and load balancing.

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

   Compared to OLSRv2, this extension does not introduce new message
   type.  A new Message TLV Type is introduced to identify the routers
   that support forwarding based on source route routing header.  It is
   interoperable with OLSRv2 implementations that do not have this
   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
   calculation approaches: proactive and reactive.  In the proactive
   calculation, the paths to all the destinations are calculated before
   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

   This specification uses OLSRv2 [RFC7181] to:

   o  Identify all the reachable routers in the network.

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

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

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

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

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

   o  In the reactive approach, a multi-path algorithm is invoked on
      demand, i.e., only when there is a datagram to be sent from the
      source to the destination, and there is no available Routing Tuple
      in the Multi-path Routing Set. 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.  The
      reactive operation is local in the router and no message
      transmission delay additional
      routing control messages exchange is introduced. 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
   multi-path calculation independently according to their computation
   resources.  The Multi-path Dijkstra algorithm (defined in
   Section 8.5) is introduced as the default algorithm to generate
   multiple disjoint paths from a source to a destination, and such
   information is kept in the Multi-path Routing Set.

   The datagram is forwarded based on source routing.  When there is a
   datagram to be sent to a destination, the source router acquires a
   path from the Multi-path Routing Set (MAY be Round-Robin, or other
   scheduling algorithms).  The path information is stored in the
   datagram header as source routing header.

5.  Parameters and Constants

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

5.1.  Router Parameters

   NUMBER_OF_PATHS   The number of paths desired by the router.

   MAX_SRC_HOPS   The maximum number of hops allowed to be put in the
      source routing header.  A value set zero means there is no
      limitation on the maximum number of hops.  In an IPv6 network, it
      MUST be set to 0 because [RFC6554] supports only strict source
      routing.  All the intermediate routers MUST be included in the
      source routing header, which makes the number of hops to be kept a
      variable.  In an IPv4 network, it MUST be strictly less than 11
      and greater than 0 due to the limit of the IPv4 header.

   CUTOFF_RATIO   The ratio that defines the maximum metric of a path
      compared to the shortest path kept in the OLSRv2 Routing Set. For
      example, the metric to a destination is R_metric based on the
      Routing Set. Then the maximum metric allowed for a path is
      CUTOFF_RATIO * R_metric.  CUTOFF_RATIO MUST be greater than or
      equal to 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
      successive TC messages by a MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process.

   SR_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER  The multiplier to calculate the minimal time
      that a SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuple SHOULD be kept in the SR-OLSRv2
      Router Set. It is the value of the Message TLV with Type =

6.  Packets and Messages

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

6.1.  HELLO and TC messages

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


   SOURCE_ROUTE TLV is a Message TLV signalling that the message is
   generated by a router that supports source-route forwarding.  It can
   be an MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process, or an OLSRv2 Routing Process that
   supports source-route forwarding.

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

   |     Type     |   Value   |                  Value                 |
   |              |   Length  |                                        |
   | SOURCE_ROUTE |  1 octet  |  The parameter SR_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER |
   |              |           |           (unsigned integer)           |

                   Table 1: SOURCE_ROUTE TLV Definition

   Every HELLO or TC message generated by an OLSRv2 Routing Process MAY MUST
   have exactly one SOURCE_ROUTE TLV, if the OLSRv2 Routing Process
   supports source-route forwarding, and is willing to join the source
   route generated by other MP-OLSRv2 Routing Processes.  The existence
   of SOURCE_ROUTE TLV MUST be consistent for a specific OLSRv2 Routing
   Process, i.e., either it adds SOURCE_ROUTE TLV to all its HELLO/TC
   messages, or it does not add SOURCE_ROUTE TLV to any HELLO/TC

6.2.  Datagram

6.2.1.  Source Routing Header in IPv4

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

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

6.2.2.  Source Routing Header in IPv6

   In IPv6 [RFC2460] [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] networks, the MP-OLSRv2 routing
   process employs the source routing header as defined in section 3 of
   [RFC6554], but with IPv6 Routing Type 254 (experimental).

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

7.  Information Bases

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

7.1.  SR-OLSRv2 Router Set

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

   (SR_addr, SR_time)


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

   SR_time -   is the time until which the SR-OLSRv2 Router Tuple is
      considered valid.

7.2.  Multi-path Routing Set

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

   (MR_dest_addr, MR_path_set)


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

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

   Each Path Tuple is defined as:

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


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

   PT_address[1, ..., n-1] -   are the addresses of intermediate routers
      to be visited numbered from 1 to n-1, where n is the number of
      routers in the path, i.e., the hop count.

8.  Protocol Details

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

8.1.  HELLO and TC Message Generation

   HELLO messages are generated according to Section 15.1 of [RFC7181]. [RFC7181],
   plus a single message TLV with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE included.

   TC message are generated according to Section 16.1 of [RFC7181].  As [RFC7181] plus
   a single message TLV with Type := SOURCE_ROUTE included.  At least
   one TC message MUST be generated by an MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process
   during SR_TC_INTERVAL. 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
   addresses.  This is due to the fact that not all routers will
   generate TC messages based on OLSRv2.  The TC generation based on
   SR_TC_INTERVAL serves for those routers to advertise SOURCE_ROUTE TLV
   so that the other routers can be aware of the source-route enabled
   routers so as to be used as destinations of multipath routing.  The
   SR_TC_INTERVAL is set to a longer value than TC_INTERVAL.

   For both TC and HELLO messages, a single Message TLV with Type :=
   SOURCE_ROUTE MUST be included.

8.2.  HELLO and TC Message Processing

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

   For the purpose of this section, the following definitions are used:

   o  "validity time" is calculated from the Message TLV with Type =

   In addition to the reasons specified in [RFC7181] for discarding a
   HELLO message or a TC message.

   o  "source route hold time multiplier" is defined as being the value
      of message on reception, a HELLO or TC message
   received MUST be discarded if it has more than one Message TLV with

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

   o  SR_addr := originator address of the HELLO or TC message

   o  SR_time := current_time + source route hold time multiplier SR_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER * validity time, time
      of the TC or HELLO message defined in [RFC7181], unless the existed
      existing SR_time is greater than the newly calculated the SR_time.

8.3.  MPR Selection

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

   o  MP-OLSR  MP-OLSRv2 routers SHOULD be preferred as routing MPRs. MPRs to increase
      the possiblity of finding disjoint paths using MP-OLSRv2 routers.

   o  The number of routing MPRs that run MP-OLSR MP-OLSRv2 Routing Process MUST
      be equal or greater than NUMBER_OF_PATHS if there are enough MP-
      OLSRv2 symmetric neighbors.  Or else, all the MP-OLSR MP-OLSRv2 routers
      are selected as routing MPRs.

8.4.  Datagram Processing at the MP-OLSRv2 Originator

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

   o  MR_dest_addr = destination of the datagram

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

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

   If a matching Multi-path Routing Tuple is obtained, the Path Tuples
   of the Multi-path Routing Tuple are applied to the datagrams using
   Round-robin scheduling.  For example, they there are 2 path Tuples
   (Path-1, Path-2) for destination router D. A series of datagrams
   (Packet-1, Packet-2, Packet-3, ... etc.) are to be sent router D.
   Path-1 is then chosen for Packet-1, Path-2 for Packet-2, Path-1 for
   Packet 3, etc.  Other path scheduling mechanisms are also possible
   and will not impact the interoperability of different

   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
   IPv6 networks, strict source routing is used, thus all the
   intermediate routers in the path are stored in the source routing
   header following format defined in section 3 of [RFC6554], except the [RFC6554] with
   Routing Type field is set to 254 (experimental). 3.

   For IPv4 networks, loose source routing is used, with following

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

   o  If the length of the path (n) is greater than MAX_SRC_HOPS, MAX_SRC_HOPS
      (Section 5), only the "key" routers in the path are kept.  By
      default, the key routers are uniformly chosen in the path.  If
      further information such as capacity of the routers (e.g., battery
      life) or the routers' willingness in forwarding data is available,
      the routers with higher capacity and willingness are preferred.

   o  The routers that are considered not appropriate for forwarding
      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

8.5.1.  Requirements of Multi-path Calculation

   The Multi-path Routing Set maintains the information of multiple
   paths the to the destination.  The Path Tuples of the Multi-path Routing
   Set (Section 7.2) are generated based on a multi-path algorithm.

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

   o  The metric of the path to the destination,

   o  The list of intermediate routers on the path.

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

   After the calculation of multiple paths, the metric of paths (denoted
   c_i for path i) to the destination is compared to the R_metric of the
   OLSRv2 Routing Tuple ([RFC7181]) to the same destination.  If the
   metric c_i is greater than R_metric * CUTOFF_RATIO, CUTOFF_RATIO (Section 5), the
   corresponding path i SHOULD NOT be used.  If less than 2 paths are
   found with metrics less than R_metric * CUTOFF_RATIO, the router
   SHOULD fall back to OLSRv2 Routing Process without using multipath
   routing.  This can happen if there are too much OLSRv2-only routers
   in the network, and requiring multipath routing may result in
   inferior paths.

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

   o  MR_dest_addr := destination of the datagram

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

8.5.2.  Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm

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

   The general principle of the Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm [ADHOC11]
   is using Dijkstra algorithm for multiple iterations, and at step iteration
   i to look for the shortest path P[i] to the destination d.  After
   each iteration, the cost of used links is increased.  Compared to the
   original Dijkstra algorithm, the main modification consists in adding
   two incremental functions named metric functions fp and fe in order
   to prevent the next steps resulting in similar paths:

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

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

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

                                       /    \
                                      /      \
                                     /        \

                                 Figure 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.6.  Multi-path Routing Set Updates

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

   o  In reactive mode, all the Tuples in the Multi-path Routing Set are
      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
      according to Section 8.5.

8.7.  Datagram Forwarding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   o  SR_HOLD_TIME_MULTIPLIER := 32.  It MUST be greater than 1 and less
      than 255.  It SHOULD be greater than 30.

   If Multi-path Dijkstra Algorithm is applied:

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

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

   The setting of metric functions fp and fc defines the preference of
   obtained multiple disjoint paths.  If id is the identity function,
   i.e., fp(c)=c, 3 cases are possible:

   o  if id=fe<fp: only increase the metric of related links;

   o  if id<fe=fp: apply equal increase to the metric of related nodes
      and 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
   use of such links or nodes in the next path to be calculated.

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
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and based on a proposal described in [RFC6982]. [RFC7942].  The
   description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
   the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
   Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
   does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort has
   been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
   by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not be
   construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may

   According to [RFC6982], [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

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

10.1.  Multi-path extension based on nOLSRv2

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

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

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

10.2.  Multi-path extension based on olsrd

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

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

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

10.3.  Multi-path extension based on umOLSR

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

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

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

11.  Security Considerations

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

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

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

   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
   specification introduces vulnerabilities related to source routing
   attacks, which include bypassing filtering devices, bandwidth
   exhaustion of certain routers, etc.  Those attacks are discussed in
   Section 5.1 5 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.

   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

12.  IANA Considerations

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

12.1.  Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines

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

12.2.  Message TLV Types

   This specification updates the Message Type 7 by adding the new Type
   Extension SOURCE_ROUTE, as illustrated in Table 2.

   |    Type   |     Name     |       Description      | Reference     |
   | Extension |              |                        |               |
   |    TBD    | SOURCE_ROUTE |   Indicates that the   | This          |
   |           |              |    originator of the   | specification |
   |           |              |    message supports    |               |
   |           |              |      source route      |               |
   |           |              | forwarding.  The value |               |
   |           |              |   is a multiplier for  |               |
   |           |              |  calculating the hold  |               |
   |           |              |    time of SR-OLSRv2   |               |
   |           |              |     Router Tuples.     |               |

      Table 2: SOURCE_ROUTE type for RFC 5444 Type 7 Message TLV Type

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

   The authors would like to thank Sylvain David, Asmaa Adnane, Eddy
   Cizeron, Salima Hamma, Pascal Lesage and Xavier Lecourtier for their
   efforts in developing, implementing and testing the specification.
   The authors also appreciate valuable discussions with Thomas Clausen,
   Ulrich Herberg, Justin Dean, Geoff Ladwig, Henning Rogge , Marcus
   Barkowsky and especially Christopher Dearlove for his multiple rounds
   of reviews during the working group last calls.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14.2.  Informative References

   [ADHOC11]  Yi, J., Adnane, A-H., David, S., and B. Parrein,
              "Multipath optimized link state routing for mobile ad hoc
              networks", In Elsevier Ad Hoc Journal, vol.9, n. 1, 28-47,
              January, 2011.

   [GIIS14]   Macedo, R., Melo, R., Santos, A., and M. Nogueria,
              "Experimental performance comparison of single-path and
              multipath routing in VANETs", In Global Information
              Infrastructure and Networking Symposium (GIIS), 2014 ,
              vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 15-19, 2014.

              Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09 (work
              in progress), March 2017.

              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Leddy, J., Field, B.,
    , d.,, 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.

              Clausen, T., Herberg, U., and J. Yi, "Security Threats for to
              the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2
              (OLSRv2)", draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats-02 draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-sec-threats-04 (work in
              progress), May 2016.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <>. January 2017.

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

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

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

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

   [RFC5871]  Arkko, J. and S. Bradner, "IANA Allocation Guidelines for
              the IPv6 Routing Header", RFC 5871, DOI 10.17487/RFC5871,
              May 2010, <>.

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

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

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

   [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,

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

   [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

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

   A network topology is depicted in Figure 2.

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

                                 Figure 2

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

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

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

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

                                 Figure 3

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

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

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

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

                                 Figure 4

Authors' Addresses

   Jiazi Yi
   Ecole Polytechnique
   91128 Palaiseau Cedex,

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

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

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