[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6554

6MAN                                                              J. Hui
Internet-Draft                                     Arch Rock Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track                             JP. Vasseur
Expires: September 14, 2011                           Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                               D. Culler
                                                             UC Berkeley
                                                               V. Manral
                                                             IP Infusion
                                                          March 13, 2011


           An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with RPL
                 draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-02

Abstract

   In Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs), memory constraints on routers
   may limit them to maintaining at most a few routes.  In some
   configurations, it is necessary to use these memory constrained
   routers to deliver datagrams to nodes within the LLN.  The Routing
   for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) protocol can be used in some
   deployments to store most, if not all, routes on one (e.g. the
   Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) root) or few routers and forward the
   IPv6 datagram using a source routing technique to avoid large routing
   tables on memory constrained routers.  This document specifies a new
   IPv6 Routing header type for delivering datagrams within a RPL
   domain.

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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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 September 14, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Format of the RPL Routing Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  RPL Router Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Generating Type 4 Routing Headers  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Processing Type 4 Routing Headers  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  RPL Border Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  Source Routing Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.2.  ICMPv6 Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Protocol Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

















Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


1.  Introduction

   Routing for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) is a distance vector
   IPv6 routing protocol designed for Low Power and Lossy networks (LLN)
   [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].  Such networks are typically constrained in
   resources (limited communication data rate, processing power, energy
   capacity, memory).  In particular, some LLN configurations may
   utilize LLN routers where memory constraints limit nodes to
   maintaining only a small number of default routes and no other
   destinations.  However, it may be necessary to utilize such memory-
   constrained routers to forward datagrams and maintain reachability to
   destinations within the LLN.

   To utilize paths that include memory-constrained routers, RPL relies
   on source routing.  In one deployment model of RPL, necessary
   mechanisms are used to collect routing information at more capable
   routers and form paths from those routers to arbitrary destinations
   within the RPL domain.  However, a source routing mechanism supported
   by IPv6 is needed to deliver datagrams.

   This document specifies the Type 4 Routing header (RH4) (to be
   confirmed by IANA) for use strictly within a RPL domain.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].























Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


2.  Overview

   The format of RH4 draws from that of the Type 0 Routing header (RH0)
   [RFC2460].  However, RH4 introduces mechanisms to compact the source
   route entries when all entries share the same prefix with the IPv6
   Destination Address of a packet carrying a RH4, a typical scenario in
   LLNs using source routing.  The compaction mechanism reduces
   consumption of scarce resources such as channel capacity.

   RH4 also differs from RH0 in the processing rules to alleviate
   security concerns that lead to the deprecation of RH0 [RFC5095].
   First, routers processing RH4 MUST implement a strict source route
   policy where each and every IPv6 hop is specified within the datagram
   itself.  Second, a RH4 header MUST only be used within a RPL domain.
   RPL Border Routers, responsible for connecting RPL domains and IP
   domains that use other routing protocols, MUST NOT allow datagrams
   already carrying a RH4 header to enter or exit the RPL domain.
   Third, to avoid some attacks that lead to the deprecation of RH0,
   routers along the way MUST verify that loops do not exist with in the
   source route.

   To deliver a datagram, a router MAY specify a source route to reach
   the destination using a RH4.  There are two cases that determine how
   to include an RH4 with a datagram.

   1.  If the RH4 specifies the complete path from source to
       destination, the RH4 should be included directly within the
       datagram itself.

   2.  If the RH4 only specifies a subset of the path from source to
       destination, router SHOULD use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as
       specified in [RFC2473].  When tunneling, the router MUST prepend
       a new IPv6 header and RH4 to the original datagram.  Use of
       tunneling ensures that the datagram is delivered unmodified and
       that ICMP errors return to the source of the RH4 rather than the
       source of the original datagram.

   In a RPL network, Case 1 occurs when both source and destinations are
   within a RPL domain and a single RH4 header is used to specify the
   entire path from source to destination, as shown in the following
   figure:


                           +--------------------+
                           |                    |
                           |  (S) -------> (D)  |
                           |                    |
                           +--------------------+



Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


                                  RPL Domain


   In the above scenario, datagrams traveling from source, S, to
   destination, D, have the following packet structure:


                     +------+------+------+--------//-+
                     | IPv6 | IPv6 | IPv6 | Packet    |
                     | Src  | Dst  | RH4  | Payload   |
                     +------+------+------+--------//-+


   S's address is carried in the IPv6 Source Address field.  D's address
   is carried in the last entry of RH4 for all but the last hop, when
   D's address is carried in the IPv6 Destination Address field of the
   packet carrying the RH4.

   In a RPL network, Case 2 occurs for all datagrams that have either
   source or destination outside the RPL domain, as shown in the
   following diagram:


                     +-----------------+
                     |                 |
                     |  (S) -------> (BR1) -------> (D)
                     |                 |
                     +-----------------+
                          RPL Domain

                     +-----------------+
                     |                 |
                     |  (D) <------- (BR1) <------- (S)
                     |                 |
                     +-----------------+
                          RPL Domain


   In the above scenario, datagrams that include the RH4 in tunneled
   mode have the following packet structure when traveling within the
   RPL domain:


              +------+------+------+------+------+--------//-+
              | IPv6 | IPv6 | IPv6 | IPv6 | IPv6 | Packet    |
              | Src  | Dst  | RH4  | Src  | Dst  | Payload   |
              +------+------+------+------+------+--------//-+
                                    <--- Original Packet --->



Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


               <---           Tunneled Packet            --->


   Note that the outer header (including the RH4) is added and removed
   by the RPL Border Router.

   Case 2 also occurs whenever a RPL router needs to insert a source
   route when forwarding datagram.  One such use case with RPL is to
   have all RPL traffic flow through a Border Router and have the Border
   Router use source routes to deliver datagrams to their final
   destination.  When including the RH4 using tunneled-mode, the Border
   Router would encapsulate the received datagram unmodified using IPv6-
   in-IPv6 and include a RH4 in the outer IPv6 header.


                           +-----------------+
                           |                 |
                           |  (S) -------\   |
                           |              \  |
                           |               (BR1)
                           |              /  |
                           |  (D) <------/   |
                           |                 |
                           +-----------------+
                                RPL Domain


   In the above scenario, datagrams travel from S to D through BR1.
   Between S and BR1, the datagrams are routed using the DAG built by
   RPL and do not contain a RH4.  BR1 encapsulates received datagrams
   unmodified using IPv6-in-IPv6 and the RH4 is included in the outer
   IPv6 header.

   To help avoid IP-layer fragmentation, the RH4 header has a maximum
   size of RH4_MAX_SIZE octets and links within a RPL domain SHOULD have
   a MTU of at least 1280 + 40 (outer IP header) + RH4_MAX_SIZE (+
   additional extension headers or options needed within RPL domain)
   octets.













Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


3.  Format of the RPL Routing Header

   The Type 4 Routing header has the following format:


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type=4| Segments Left |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |              Reserved                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                        Addresses[1..n]                        .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Next Header         8-bit selector.  Identifies the type of header
                       immediately following the Routing header.  Uses
                       the same values as the IPv4 Protocol field
                       [RFC3232].

   Hdr Ext Len         8-bit unsigned integer.  Length of the Routing
                       header in 8-octet units, not including the first
                       8 octets.  Hdr Ext Len MUST NOT exceed
                       RH4_MAX_SIZE / 8.  Note that when Addresses[1..n]
                       are compressed (i.e. value of CmprI or CmprE is
                       not 0), Hdr Ext Len does not equal twice the
                       number of Addresses.

   Routing Type        8-bit selector.  Set to 4 (to be confirmed by
                       IANA).

   Segments Left       8-bit unsigned integer.  Number of route segments
                       remaining, i.e., number of explicitly listed
                       intermediate nodes still to be visited before
                       reaching the final destination.

   CmprI               4-bit unsigned integer.  Number of prefix octets
                       from each segment, except than the last segment,
                       that are elided.  For example, a Type 4 Routing
                       header carrying full IPv6 addresses in
                       Addresses[1..n-1] sets CmprI to 0.





Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


   CmprE               4-bit unsigned integer.  Number of prefix octets
                       from the segment that are elided.  For example, a
                       Type 4 Routing header carrying a full IPv6
                       address in Addresses[n] sets CmprE to 0.

   Pad                 4-bit unsigned integer.  Number of octets that
                       are used for padding after Address[n] at the end
                       of the Type 4 Routing header.

   Address[1..n]       Vector of addresses, numbered 1 to n.  Each
                       vector element in [1..n-1] has size (16 - CmprI)
                       and element [n] has size (16-CmprE).

   The Type 4 Routing header shares the same basic format as the Type 0
   Routing header [RFC2460].  When carrying full IPv6 addresses, the
   CmprI, CmprE, and Pad fields are set to 0 and the only difference
   between the Type 4 and Type 0 encodings is the value of the Routing
   Type field.

   A common network configuration for a RPL domain is that all nodes
   within a LLN share a common prefix.  Type 4 Routing header introduces
   the CmprI, CmprE, and Pad fields to allow compaction of the
   Address[1..n] vector when all entries share the same prefix as the
   IPv6 Destination Address field of the packet carrying the RH4.  The
   CmprI and CmprE field indicates the number of prefix octets that are
   shared with the IPv6 Destination Address of the packet carrying the
   RH4.  The shared prefix octets are not carried within the Routing
   header and each entry in Address[1..n-1] has size (16 - CmprI) octets
   and Address[n] has size (16 - CmprE) octets.  When CmprI or CmprE is
   non-zero, there may exist unused octets between the last entry,
   Address[n], and the end of the Routing header.  The Pad field
   indicates the number of unused octets that are used for padding.
   Note that when CmprI and CmprE are both 0, Pad MUST carry a value of
   0.

   The Type 4 Routing header MUST NOT specify a path that visits a node
   more than once.  When generating a Type 4 Routing header, the source
   may not know the mapping between IPv6 addresses and nodes.
   Minimally, the source MUST ensure that IPv6 Addresses do not appear
   more than once and the IPv6 Source and Destination addresses of the
   encapsulating datagram do not appear in the Type 4 Routing header.

   Multicast addresses MUST NOT appear in a Type 4 Routing header, or in
   the IPv6 Destination Address field of a datagram carrying a Type 4
   Routing header.






Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


4.  RPL Router Behavior

4.1.  Generating Type 4 Routing Headers

   To deliver an IPv6 datagram to its destination, a router may need to
   generate a new Type 4 Routing header and specify a strict source
   route.  Routers SHOULD use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified in
   [RFC2473] to include a new Type 4 Routing header in datagrams that
   are sourced by other nodes.  Using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling ensures
   that the delivered datagram remains unmodified and that ICMPv6 errors
   generated by a Type 4 Routing header are sent back to the router that
   generated the routing header.

   Performing IP-in-IP encapsulation may grow the datagram to a size
   larger than the IPv6 min MTU of 1280 octets.  To help avoid IP-layer
   fragmentation caused by IP-in-IP encapsulation, links within a RPL
   domain SHOULD be configured with a MTU of at least 1280 + 40 (outer
   IP header) + RH4_MAX_SIZE (+ additional extension headers or options
   needed within RPL domain) octets.

   In very specific cases, IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling may be undesirable due
   to the added cost and complexity required to process and carry a
   datagram with two IPv6 headers.  [I-D.hui-6man-rpl-headers] describes
   how to avoid using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling in such specific cases and
   the risks involved.

4.2.  Processing Type 4 Routing Headers

   As specified in [RFC2460], a routing header is not examined or
   processed until it reaches the node identified in the Destination
   Address field of the IPv6 header.  In that node, dispatching on the
   Next Header field of the immediately preceding header causes the
   Routing header module to be invoked.

   The function of Type 4 Routing header is intended to be very similar
   to IPv4's Strict Source and Record Route option [RFC0791].  After the
   routing header has been processed and the IPv6 datagram resubmitted
   to the IPv6 module for processing, the IPv6 Destination Address
   contains the next hop's address.  When forwarding an IPv6 datagram
   that contains a RH4 with a non-zero Segments Left value, if the IPv6
   Destination Address is not on-link, a router SHOULD send an ICMP
   Destination Unreachable (ICMPv6 Type 1) message with ICMPv6 Code set
   to 7 (to be confirmed by IANA) to the packet's Source Address.  An
   ICMPv6 Code of 7 indicates that the IPv6 Destination Address is not
   on-link and the router cannot satisfy the strict source route
   requirement.  When generating ICMPv6 error messages, the rules in
   Section 2.4 of [RFC4443] must be observed.




Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


   To detect loops in the Type 4 Routing headers, a router MUST
   determine if the Type 4 Routing header includes multiple addresses
   assigned to any interface on that router.  If such addresses appear
   more than once and are separated by at least one address not assigned
   to that router, the router MUST drop the packet and SHOULD send an
   ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, to the Source Address.

   The following describes the algorithm performed when processing a
   Type 4 Routing header:










































Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


    if Segments Left = 0 {
       proceed to process the next header in the packet, whose type is
       identified by the Next Header field in the Routing header
    }
    else {
       compute n, the number of addresses in the Routing header, by
       n = (((Hdr Ext Len * 8) - Pad - (16 - CmprE)) / (16 - CmprI)) + 1

       if Segments Left is greater than n {
          send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to the Source
          Address, pointing to the Segments Left field, and discard the
          packet
       }
       else {
          decrement Segments Left by 1;
          compute i, the index of the next address to be visited in
          the address vector, by subtracting Segments Left from n

          if Address[i] or the IPv6 Destination Address is multicast {
             discard the packet
          }
          else if 2 or more entries in Address[1..n] are assigned to
                  local interface and are separated by at least one
                  address not assigned to local interface {
             discard the packet
          }
          else {
             swap the IPv6 Destination Address and Address[i]

             if the IPv6 Hop Limit is less than or equal to 1 {
                send an ICMP Time Exceeded -- Hop Limit Exceeded in
                Transit message to the Source Address and discard the
                packet
             }
             else {
                decrement the Hop Limit by 1

                resubmit the packet to the IPv6 module for transmission
                to the new destination
             }
          }
       }
    }








Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


5.  RPL Border Router Behavior

   RPL Border Routers (referred to as LBRs in
   [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]) are responsible for ensuring that a Type
   4 Routing header is only used within the RPL domain it was created.

   For datagrams entering the RPL domain, RPL Border Routers MUST drop
   received datagrams that contain a Type 4 Routing header in the IPv6
   Extension headers.

   For datagrams exiting the RPL domain, RPL Border Routers MUST check
   for a Type 4 Routing header.  If Segments Left is 0, the router MUST
   remove the RH4 from the datagram.  If the RH4 was included using
   tunneled mode and the RPL Border Router serves as the tunnel end-
   point, removing the outer IPv6 header serves to remove the RH4 as
   well.  Otherwise, the RPL Border Router assumes that the RH4 was
   included using transport mode and MUST remove the RH4 from the IPv6
   header.  If Segments Left is non-zero, the router MUST drop the
   datagram.
































Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Source Routing Attacks

   [RFC5095] deprecates the Type 0 Routing header due to a number of
   significant attacks that are referenced in that document.  Such
   attacks include network discovery, bypassing filtering devices,
   denial-of-service, and defeating anycast.

   The RPL specification states that only Type 4 Routing Headers are
   valid.  Therefore, RPL domains are not vunerable to attacks using
   Type 0 routing headers.  Additionally, RPL Border Routers drop
   datagrams entering or exiting the RPL domain that contain a Type 4
   Routing header in the IPv6 Extension headers (see Section 5).

6.2.  ICMPv6 Attacks

   The generation of ICMPv6 error messages may be used to attempt
   denial-of-service attacks by sending error-causing Type 4 Routing
   headers in back-to-back datagrams.  An implementation that correctly
   follows Section 2.4 of [RFC4443] would be protected by the ICMPv6
   rate limiting mechanism.





























Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new IPv6 Routing Type of 4 (to be confirmed
   by IANA).

   This document defines a new ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable Code of 7
   (to be confirmed by IANA) to indicate that the router cannot satisfy
   the strict source-route requirement.











































Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


8.  Protocol Constants

   RH4_MAX_SIZE        136

   With a base header size of 8 octets, 136 octets will allow for up to
   8 16-octet address entries in the Type 4 Routing header.  More
   entries are possible within 136 octets when compression is used.












































Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Richard Kelsey, Suresh Krishnan, Erik Nordmark,
   Pascal Thubert, Tim Winter and Adrian Farrel for their comments and
   suggestions that helped shape this document.














































Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


10.  Changes

   (This section to be removed by the RFC editor.)

   Draft 02:

      - Updated to send ICMP Destination Unreachable error only after
      the RH4 has been processed.

      - Updated psuedocode to reflect encoding changes in draft-01.

      - Allow multiple addresses assigned to same node as long as they
      are not separated by other addresses.

   Draft 01:

      - Allow Addresses[1..n-1] and Addresses[n] to have a different
      number of bytes elided.

































Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

   [RFC2473]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
              IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

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

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.hui-6man-rpl-headers]
              Hui, J., Thubert, P., and J. Vasseur, "Using RPL Headers
              Without IP-in-IP", draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00 (work in
              progress), July 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
              Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen, T., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., and J.
              Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and
              Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-18 (work in
              progress), February 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
              Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
              Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-04 (work in
              progress), September 2010.

   [RFC3232]  Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
              an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.






Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Jonathan W. Hui
   Arch Rock Corporation
   501 2nd St. Ste. 410
   San Francisco, California  94107
   USA

   Phone: +415 692 0828
   Email: jhui@archrock.com


   JP Vasseur
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   11, Rue Camille Desmoulins
   Issy Les Moulineaux,   92782
   France

   Email: jpv@cisco.com


   David E. Culler
   UC Berkeley
   465 Soda Hall
   Berkeley, California  94720
   USA

   Phone: +510 643 7572
   Email: culler@cs.berkeley.edu


   Vishwas Manral
   IP Infusion
   Bamankhola, Bansgali
   Almora, Uttarakhand  263601
   India

   Phone: +91-98456-61911
   Email: vishwas@ipinfusion.com












Hui, et al.            Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/