[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 30, 2011                           Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                               D. Culler
                                                             UC Berkeley
                                                               V. Manral
                                                             IP Infusion
                                                          March 29, 2011


           An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with RPL
                 draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-03

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 30, 2011.

Copyright Notice

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



Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 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 Source Routing Headers  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Processing Source 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 30, 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 Source Routing Header (SRH) 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 30, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


2.  Overview

   The format of SRH draws from that of the Type 0 Routing header (RH0)
   [RFC2460].  However, SRH 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 SRH, a typical scenario in
   LLNs using source routing.  The compaction mechanism reduces
   consumption of scarce resources such as channel capacity.

   SRH also differs from RH0 in the processing rules to alleviate
   security concerns that lead to the deprecation of RH0 [RFC5095].
   First, routers processing SRH MUST implement a strict source route
   policy where each and every IPv6 hop is specified within the datagram
   itself.  Second, a SRH 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 SRH 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 SRH.  There are two cases that determine how
   to include an SRH with a datagram.

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

   2.  If the SRH 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 SRH to the original datagram.  Use of
       tunneling ensures that the datagram is delivered unmodified and
       that ICMP errors return to the source of the SRH 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 SRH 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 30, 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  | SRH  | Payload   |
                     +------+------+------+--------//-+


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

   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 SRH in tunneled
   mode have the following packet structure when traveling within the
   RPL domain:


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



Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


               <---           Tunneled Packet            --->


   Note that the outer header (including the SRH) 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 SRH using tunneled-mode, the Border
   Router would encapsulate the received datagram unmodified using IPv6-
   in-IPv6 and include a SRH 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 SRH.  BR1 encapsulates received datagrams
   unmodified using IPv6-in-IPv6 and the SRH is included in the outer
   IPv6 header.

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













Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


3.  Format of the RPL Routing Header

   The Source 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  | 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
                       SRH_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.  TBD 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 SRH carrying
                       full IPv6 addresses in Addresses[1..n-1] sets
                       CmprI to 0.






Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 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
                       SRH 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 SRH.

   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 SRH 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 SRH 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.  The SRH 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 SRH.  The CmprI and CmprE
   field indicates the number of prefix octets that are shared with the
   IPv6 Destination Address of the packet carrying the SRH.  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 SRH MUST NOT specify a path that visits a node more than once.
   When generating a SRH, 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 SRH.

   Multicast addresses MUST NOT appear in a SRH, or in the IPv6
   Destination Address field of a datagram carrying a SRH.









Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


4.  RPL Router Behavior

4.1.  Generating Source Routing Headers

   To deliver an IPv6 datagram to its destination, a router may need to
   generate a new SRH and specify a strict source route.  Routers SHOULD
   use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified in [RFC2473] to include a
   new SRH 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 SRH 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) + SRH_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 Source 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 SRH 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 SRH
   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 (TBD by IANA) to the
   packet's Source Address.  This ICMPv6 Code 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.

   To detect loops in the SRH, a router MUST determine if the SRH
   includes multiple addresses assigned to any interface on that router.



Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


   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
   SRH:












































Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 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 30, 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 SRH
   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 SRH in the IPv6 Extension headers.

   For datagrams exiting the RPL domain, RPL Border Routers MUST check
   for a SRH.  If Segments Left is 0, the router MUST remove the SRH
   from the datagram.  If the SRH 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 SRH as well.  Otherwise, the
   RPL Border Router assumes that the SRH was included using transport
   mode and MUST remove the SRH from the IPv6 header.  If Segments Left
   is non-zero, the router MUST drop the datagram.


































Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 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.

   Because this document specifies that SRH is only for use within a RPL
   domain, such attacks cannot be mounted from outside the RPL domain.
   As described in Section 5, RPL Border Routers MUST drop datagrams
   entering or exiting the RPL domain that contain a SRH in the IPv6
   Extension headers.

6.2.  ICMPv6 Attacks

   The generation of ICMPv6 error messages may be used to attempt
   denial-of-service attacks by sending error-causing SRH 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 30, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new IPv6 Routing Type of TBD by IANA.

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












































Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


8.  Protocol Constants

   SRH_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 SRH.  More entries are possible
   within 136 octets when compression is used.












































Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


9.  Acknowledgements

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














































Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           RPL Source Route Header              March 2011


10.  Changes

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

   Draft 03:

      - Removed any presumed values that are TBD by IANA.

   Draft 02:

      - Updated to send ICMP Destination Unreachable error only after
      the SRH 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 30, 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-19 (work in
              progress), March 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
              Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
              Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-05 (work in
              progress), March 2011.

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






Hui, et al.            Expires September 30, 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 30, 2011              [Page 19]


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