[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 5444
Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) T. Clausen
Internet-Draft LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, France
Intended status: Standards Track C. Dearlove
Expires: February 2, 2009 BAE Systems Advanced Technology
Centre
J. Dean
Naval Research Laboratory
C. Adjih
INRIA Rocquencourt
August 1, 2008
Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format
draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-14
Status of This Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 2, 2009.
Abstract
This document specifies a packet format capable of carrying multiple
messages that may be used by mobile ad hoc network routing protocols.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
2. Notation and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Overview and Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Syntactical Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Address Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. TLVs and TLV Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4.1. TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.2. TLV Inclusion and Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. Malformed Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1. Message Type Specific TLV Registry Creation . . . . . 21
6.3. Packet TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3.1. Packet TLV Type Extension Registry Creation . . . . . 22
6.4. Message TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4.1. Message TLV Type Extension Registry Creation . . . . . 22
6.5. Address Block TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.5.1. Address Block TLV Type Extension Registry Creation . . 23
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Authentication and Integrity Suggestions . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2. Confidentiality Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Multiplexing and Demultiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix B. Intended Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix C. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C.1. Address Block Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C.2. TLV Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix D. Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
D.1. Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
D.2. Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
D.3. Message Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
D.4. Address Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
D.5. TLV Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
D.6. TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix E. Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Appendix F. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Appendix G. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
1. Introduction
This document specifies the syntax of a packet format designed to
carrying multiple messages for information exchange between MANET
(Mobile Ad hoc NETwork) routers. Messages consist of a message
header, which is designed for control of message dissemination, and a
message body, which contains protocol information. Only the syntax
of the packet and messages is specified.
This document specifies:
o A packet format, allowing zero or more messages to be contained
within a single transmission. A packet with zero messages may be
sent in case the only information to exchange is contained in the
packet header.
o A message format, where a message is composed of a message header
and a message body.
o A message header format, which contains information which may be
sufficient to allow a protocol using this specification to make
processing and forwarding decisions.
o A message body format, containing attributes associated with the
message or the originator of the message, as well as blocks of
addresses, or address prefixes, with associated attributes.
o An address block format, where an address block represents sets of
addresses, or address prefixes, in a compact form with aggregated
addresses.
o A generalized type-length-value (TLV) format representing
attributes. Each TLV can be associated with a packet, a message,
or one or more addresses or address prefixes in a single address
block. Multiple TLVs can be included and each associated with a
packet, a message, and with the same, different or overlapping
sets of addresses or address prefixes.
The specification has been explicitly designed with the following
properties, listed in no particular order, in mind:
Parsing logic - The notation used in this specification facilitates
generic, protocol independent, parsing logic.
Extensibility - Packets and messages defined by a protocol using
this specification are extensible by defining new message types
and new TLVs. Protocols using this specification will be able to
correctly identify and skip such new message types and TLVs, while
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
correctly parsing the remainder of the packet and message.
Efficiency - When reported addresses share common bit sequences
(e.g. address prefixes or IPv6 interface identifiers) the address
block representation allows for a compact representation. Compact
message headers are ensured through permitting inclusion of only
required message header elements. The multi message packet
structure allows a reduction in the number of transmitted octets
and in the number of transmitted packets. The structure of packet
and message encoding allows parsing, verifying, and identifying
individual elements in a single pass.
Separation of forwarding and processing - A protocol using this
specification can be designed such that duplicate detection and
controlled scope message forwarding decisions can be made using
information contained in the message header, without processing
the message body.
2. Notation and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
Additionally, this document uses the notation in Section 2.1, and the
terminology in Section 2.2.
2.1. Notation
The following notations, for elements and variables, are used in this
document.
2.1.1. Elements
This specification defines elements. An element is a group of any
number of consecutive bits which together form a syntactic entity
represented using the notation <element>. Each element in this
document is defined as either:
o A specifically sized field of bits; OR
o A composite element, composed of other <element>s.
A composite element is defined as follows:
<element> := specification
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
where, on the right hand side following :=, specification is
represented using the regular expression syntax defined in
[SingleUNIX]. Only the following notation is used:
<element1><element2> - Indicates that <element1> is immediately
followed by <element2>.
(<element1><element2>) - Indicates a grouping of the elements
enclosed by the parentheses.
? - Zero or one occurrences of the preceding element or group.
* - Zero or more occurrences of the preceding element or group.
2.1.2. Variables
Variables are introduced into the specification solely as a means to
clarify the description. The following two notations are used:
<foo> - If <foo> is an unsigned integer field then <foo> is also
used to represent the value of that field.
bar - A variable, usually obtained through calculations based on the
value(s) of element(s).
The following variable is defined:
address-length - A variable whose value is the length of an address
in octets, it is 4 if using IPv4, or 16 if using IPv6.
2.2. Terminology
This document uses the following terminology:
Packet - The top level entity in this specification. A packet
contains a packet header and zero or more messages.
Message - The fundamental entity carrying protocol information, in
the form of address objects and TLVs.
Address - A number of octets of the same length as the source IP
address in the IP datagram carrying the packet. The meaning of an
address is defined by the protocol using this specification.
Address Prefix- An address plus a prefix length, with the prefix
length being a number of address bits measured from the left/most
significant end of the address.
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
Address Object - Either an address, or an address prefix, as
specified in an address block in this specification.
TLV - A Type-Length-Value structure. This is a generic way in which
an attribute can be represented and correctly parsed, without the
parser having to understand the attribute.
3. Applicability Statement
This specification describes a generic packet format, designed for
use by MANET routing protocols. The specification has been inspired
by and extended from that used by OLSR (The Optimized Link State
Routing protocol) [RFC3626].
MANETs are, commonly though not exclusively, characterized as being
able to run over wireless network interfaces of limited to moderate
capacity. MANETs are therefore less tolerant of wasted transmitted
octets than are most wired networks. This specification thus
represents a tradeoff between sometimes competing attributes,
specifically efficiency, extensibility, and ease of use.
Efficiency is supported by reducing packet size and by allowing
multiple disjoint messages in a single packet. Reduced packet size
is primarily supported by address aggregation, optional packet and
message header fields, and optional fields in address blocks and
TLVs. Supporting multi-message packets allows a reduction in the
number of packets, each of which can incur significant bandwidth
costs from transport, network and lower layers.
This specification provides both external and internal extensibility.
External extensibility is supported by the ability to add packet TLVs
and to define new message types. Internal extensibility is supported
by the ability to add message TLVs and address block TLVs to existing
messages. Protocols can define new TLV types, and hence the contents
of their value fields (see Section 6.1), and new message types.
Protocols can also reuse message and TLV type definitions from other
protocols which also use this specification.
This specification aims at being sufficiently expressive and flexible
to be able to accommodate both different classes of MANET routing
protocols (e.g. proactive, reactive and hybrid routing protocols), as
well as extensions thereto. Having a common packet and message
format, and a common way of representing IP addresses and associated
attributes, allows generic parsing code to be developed, regardless
of the algorithm used by the routing protocol.
All addresses within a message are assumed to be of the same size,
deduced from the IP header. In the case of mixed IPv6 and IPv4
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
addresses, IPv4 addresses can be represented as IPv4-mapped IPv6
addresses as specified in [RFC4291]. Packets may be unicast or
multicast, and may use any appropriate transport protocol, or none.
The messages defined by this specification are designed to carry
MANET routing protocol signaling between MANET routers. This
specification includes elements which can support scope limited
flooding, as well as being usable for point to point delivery of
MANET routing protocol signaling in a multi-hop network.
A MANET routing protocol using the packet format defined by this
specification can constrain the syntax (for example requiring a
specific set of message header fields) that the protocol will employ.
Protocols with such restrictions need not be able to parse all
possible packet structures as defined by this document but must be
coherent in packet generation and reception of packets of which they
define. If a protocol specifies which elements are included, then
direct indexing of the appropriate fields is possible, dependant on
the syntax restrictions imposed by the protocol. Such protocols may
have more limited extensibility.
4. Protocol Overview and Functioning
This specification does not describe a protocol. It describes a
packet format, which may be used by any mobile ad hoc network routing
protocol.
5. Syntactical Specification
This section provides syntactical specification of a packet,
represented by the element <packet> and the elements from which it is
composed. The specification is given using the notation in
Section 2.1. Illustrations of specified elements are given in
Appendix D.
This format uses network byte order (most significant octet first)
for all fields. The most significant bit in an octet is numbered bit
0, and the least significant bit of an octet is numbered bit 7
[Stevens].
5.1. Packets
<packet> is defined by:
<packet> := <pkt-header>
<message>*
where <message> is as defined in Section 5.2. Successful parsing is
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
terminated when all octets of the packet (as defined by the datagram
containing the packet) are used.
<pkt-header> is defined by:
<pkt-header> := <version>
<pkt-flags>
<pkt-seq-num>?
<tlv-block>?
where:
<version> is a 4 bit unsigned integer field and specifies the
version of the specification on which the packet and the contained
messages are constructed. This document specifies version 0.
<pkt-flags> is a 4 bit field, specifying the interpretation of the
remainder of the packet header:
bit 0 (phasseqnum): If cleared ('0'), then <pkt-seq-num> is not
included in the <pkt-header>. If set ('1'), then <pkt-seq-num>
is included in the <pkt-header>.
bit 1 (phastlv): If cleared ('0'), then <tlv-block> is not
included in the <pkt-header>. If set ('1'), then <tlv-block>
is included in the <pkt-header>.
bit 2 (pnouniord): If cleared ('0'), then the packet TLV block
MUST conform to the constraints in Section 5.4.2. If set
('1'), then the packet TLV block is not subject to the
constraints in Section 5.4.2. Additional constraints MAY be
imposed by a protocol using this specification.
bit 3: Is RESERVED, and SHOULD be cleared ('0') on transmission,
and SHOULD be ignored on reception.
<pkt-seq-num> is omitted if the phasseqnum pkt-flag is cleared
('0'), otherwise is a 16 bit unsigned integer field, specifying a
packet sequence number.
<tlv-block> is omitted if the phastlv flag is cleared ('0'), and is
otherwise as defined in Section 5.4.
5.2. Messages
Packets may, in addition to the packet header, contain one or more
messages. Messages contain:
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
o A message header.
o A message TLV block that contains zero or more TLVs, associated
with the whole message.
o Zero or more address blocks, each containing one or more address
objects.
o An address TLV block, containing zero or more TLVs, following each
address block, through which addresses can be associated with
additional attributes.
<message> is defined by:
<message> := <msg-header>
<tlv-block>
(<addr-block><tlv-block>)*
<msg-header> := <msg-type>
<msg-flags>
<msg-size>
<msg-orig-addr>?
<msg-hop-limit>?
<msg-hop-count>?
<msg-seq-num>?
where:
<tlv-block> is as defined in Section 5.4.
<addr-block> is as defined in Section 5.3.
<msg-type> is an 8 bit unsigned integer field, specifying the type
of the message.
<msg-flags> is an 8 bit field, specifying the interpretation of the
remainder of the message header:
bit 0 (mhasorig): If cleared ('0'), then <msg-orig-addr> is not
included in the <msg-header>. If set ('1'), then <msg-orig-
addr> is included in the <msg-header>.
bit 1 (mhashoplimit): If cleared ('0'), then <msg-hop-limit> is
not included in the <msg-header>. If set ('1'), then <msg-hop-
limit> is included in the <msg-header>.
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
bit 2 (mhashopcount): If cleared ('0'), then <msg-hop-count> is
not included in the <msg-header>. If set ('1'), then <msg-hop-
count> is included in the <msg-header>.
bit 3 (mhasseqnum): If cleared ('0'), then <msg-seq-num> is not
included in the <msg-header>. If set ('1'), then <msg-seq-num>
is included in the <msg-header>.
bit 4 (mnouniord): If cleared ('0'), then the message TLV block
and all address TLV blocks in the message MUST conform to the
constraints in Section 5.4.2. If set ('1'), then the message
TLV block and all address TLV blocks in the message are not
subject to the constraints in Section 5.4.2. Additional
constraints MAY be imposed by a protocol using this
specification.
bit 5-7: Are RESERVED, and SHOULD each be cleared ('0') on
transmission, and SHOULD be ignored on reception.
<msg-size> is a 16 bit unsigned integer field, specifying the number
of octets that make up the <message>, including the <msg-header>.
<msg-orig-addr> is omitted if the mhasorig msg-flag is cleared
('0'), otherwise is an identifier with length equal to address-
length, which can serve to uniquely identify the MANET router that
originated the message.
<msg-hop-limit> is omitted if the mhashoplimit msg-flag is cleared
('0'), otherwise is an 8 bit unsigned integer field, which can
contain the maximum number of hops that the message should be
further transmitted.
<msg-hop-count> is omitted if the mhashopcount msg-flag is cleared
('0'), otherwise is an 8 bit unsigned integer field, which can
contain the number of hops that the message has traveled.
<msg-seq-num> is omitted if the mhasseqnum msg-flag is cleared
('0'), otherwise is a 16 bit unsigned integer field, which can
contain a sequence number, generated by the message's originator
MANET router.
5.3. Address Blocks
An address block can specify one or more addresses. It can also
specify prefix lengths that can be applied to all addresses in the
address block. This allows an address block to specify either
addresses or address prefixes. A protocol may specify that an
address with a maximum prefix length (equal to the address length, in
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
bits) is considered to be an address, rather than an address prefix,
thus allowing an address block to contain a mixture of addresses and
address prefixes. The common term "address object" is used in this
specification to cover both of these; note that an address object in
an address block always includes the prefix length, if present.
An address is specified as a sequence of address-length octets of the
form head:mid:tail. There are no semantics associated with head, mid
or tail; this representation is solely to allow aggregation of
addresses, which often have common parts (e.g. common prefixes or
multiple IPv6 addresses on the same interface). An address block
contains an ordered set of addresses all sharing the same head and
the same tail, but having individual mids. Independently, head and
tail may be empty, allowing for representation of address objects
which do not have common heads or common tails. Detailed examples of
address blocks are included in Appendix C.1.
An address block can specify address prefixes:
o with a single prefix length for all address prefixes; OR
o with a prefix length for each address prefix.
<address-block> is defined by:
<address-block> := <num-addr>
<addr-flags>
(<head-length><head>?)?
(<tail-length><tail>?)?
<mid>*
<prefix-length>*
where:
<num-addr> is an 8 bit unsigned integer field containing the number
of addresses represented in the address block, which MUST NOT be
zero.
<addr-flags> is an 8 bit field specifying the interpretation of the
remainder of the address block:
bit 0 (ahashead): If cleared ('0'), then <head-length> and <head>
are not included in the <address-block>. If set ('1'), then
<head-length> is included in the <address-block>, and <head> is
included in the <address-block> unless <head-length> is zero.
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
bit 1 (ahasfulltail) and bit 2 (ahaszerotail): Are interpreted
according to Table 1. A combination not shown in that table
MUST NOT be used.
bit 3 (ahassingleprelen) and bit 4 (ahasmultiprelen): Are
interpreted according to Table 2. A combination not shown in
that table MUST NOT be used.
bits 5-7: Are RESERVED, and SHOULD each be cleared ('0') on
transmission, and SHOULD be ignored on reception.
+--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
| ahasfulltail | ahaszerotail | <tail-length> | <tail> |
+--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
| 0 | 0 | not included | not included |
| 1 | 0 | included | included unless |
| | | | <tail-length> is |
| | | | zero |
| 0 | 1 | included | not included |
+--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
Table 1: Interpretation of the ahasfulltail and ahaszerotail addr-
flags
+------------+-----------+------------------+-----------------------+
| ahassingle | ahasmulti | number of | prefix length of the |
| prelen | prelen | <prefix-length> | nth address prefix, |
| | | fields | in bits |
+------------+-----------+------------------+-----------------------+
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 * address-length |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | <prefix-length> |
| 0 | 1 | <num-addr> | nth <prefix-length> |
+------------+-----------+------------------+-----------------------+
Table 2: Interpretation of the ahassingleprelen and ahasmultiprelen
addr-flags
<head-length> if present is an 8 bit unsigned integer field, which
contains the number of octets in the head of all of the addresses
in the address block.
head-length is a variable, defined to equal <head-length> if
present, or 0 otherwise.
<head> is omitted if head-length is equal to 0, otherwise it is a
field of the head-length leftmost octets common to all the
addresses in the address block.
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
<tail-length> if present is an 8 bit unsigned integer field, which
contains the number of octets in the tail of all of the addresses
in the address block.
tail-length is a variable, defined to equal <tail-length> if
present, or 0 otherwise.
<tail> is omitted if tail-length is equal to 0, or if the
ahaszerotail bit is set ('1'), otherwise it is a field of the
tail-length rightmost octets common to all the addresses in the
address block. If the ahaszerotail bit is set ('1') then the
tail-length rightmost octets of all the addresses in the address
block are all 0.
mid-length is a variable, which MUST be non-negative, defined by:
* mid-length := address-length - head-length - tail-length
<mid> is omitted if mid-length is equal to 0, otherwise each <mid>
is a field of length mid-length octets, representing the mid of
the corresponding address in the address block. When not omitted,
an address block contains exactly <num-addr> <mid> fields.
<prefix-length> is an 8 bit unsigned integer field containing the
length, in bits, of an address prefix. If the ahassingleprelen
addr-flag is set ('1') then a single <prefix-length> field is
included, which contains the prefix length of all addresses in the
address block. If the ahasmultiprelen addr-flag is set ('1') then
<num-addr> <prefix-length> fields are included, each of which
contains the prefix length of the corresponding address prefix in
the address block (in the same order). Otherwise no <prefix-
length> fields are present; each address object can be considered
to have a prefix length equal to 8 * address-length bits. The
address block is malformed if any <prefix-length> element has a
value greater than 8 * address-length.
5.4. TLVs and TLV Blocks
A TLV allows association of an arbitrary attribute with a message or
a packet, or with a single address or a contiguous set of addresses
in an address block. The attribute (value) is made up from an
integer number of consecutive octets. Different attributes have
different types; attributes which are unknown when parsing can be
skipped.
TLVs are grouped in TLV blocks, with all TLVs within a TLV block
associating attributes with either the packet (for the TLV block in
the packet header), the message (for the TLV block immediately
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
following the message header) or to addresses in the immediately
preceding address block. Individual TLVs in a TLV block immediately
following an address block can associate attributes to a single
address, a range of addresses or all addresses in that address block.
When associating an attribute with more than one address, a TLV can
include one value for all addresses, or one value per address.
Detailed examples of TLVs are included in Appendix C.2.
A TLV block is defined by:
<tlv-block> := <tlvs-length>
<tlv>*
where:
<tlvs-length> is a 16 bit unsigned integer field, which contains the
total number of octets in all of the immediately following <tlv>
elements (<tlvs-length> not included).
<tlv> is as defined in Section 5.4.1.
5.4.1. TLVs
There are three kinds of TLV, each represented by an element <tlv>:
o A packet TLV, included in the packet TLV block in a packet header.
o A message TLV, included in the message TLV block in a message,
before any address blocks.
o An address block TLV, included in an address TLV block following
an address block. An address block TLV applies to:
* all address objects in the address block; OR
* any continuous sequence of address objects in the address
block; OR
* a single address object in the address block.
<tlv> is defined by:
<tlv> := <tlv-type>
<tlv-flags>
<tlv-type-ext>?
(<index-start><index-stop>?)?
(<length><value>?)?
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
where:
<tlv-type> is an 8 bit unsigned integer field, specifying the type
of the TLV, specific to the TLV kind (i.e. packet, message, or
address block TLV).
<tlv-flags> is an 8 bit field specifying the interpretation of the
remainder of the TLV:
bit 0 (thastypeext): If cleared ('0'), then <tlv-type-ext> is not
included in the <tlv>. If set ('1'), then <tlv-type-ext> is
included in the <tlv>.
bit 1 (thassingleindex) and bit 2 (thasmultiindex): Are
interpreted according to Table 3. A combination not shown in
that table MUST NOT be used. Both of these tlv-flags MUST be
cleared ('0') in packet and message TLVs.
bit 3 (thasvalue) and bit 4 (thasextlen): Are interpreted
according to Table 4. A combination not shown in that table
MUST NOT be used.
bit 5 (tismultivalue): This tlv-flag serves to specify how the
<value> field is interpreted, as specified below. This tlv-
flag MUST be cleared ('0') in packet and message TLVs, if the
thasmultiindex tlv-flag is cleared ('0'), or if the thasvalue
tlv-flag is cleared ('0').
bits 6-7: Are RESERVED, and SHOULD each be cleared ('0') on
transmission, and SHOULD be ignored on reception.
+-----------------+----------------+---------------+--------------+
| thassingleindex | thasmultiindex | <index-start> | <index-stop> |
+-----------------+----------------+---------------+--------------+
| 0 | 0 | not included | not included |
| 1 | 0 | included | not included |
| 0 | 1 | included | included |
+-----------------+----------------+---------------+--------------+
Table 3: Interpretation of the thassingleindex and thasmultiindex
tlv-flags
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
+-----------+------------+--------------+---------------------------+
| thasvalue | thasextlen | <length> | <value> |
+-----------+------------+--------------+---------------------------+
| 0 | 0 | not included | not included |
| 1 | 0 | 8 bits | included unless <length> |
| | | | is zero |
| 1 | 1 | 16 bits | included unless <length> |
| | | | is zero |
+-----------+------------+--------------+---------------------------+
Table 4: Interpretation of the thasvalue and thasextlen tlv-flags
<tlv-type-ext> is an 8 bit unsigned integer field, specifying an
extension of the TLV type, specific to the TLV type and kind (i.e.
packet, message, or address block TLV).
tlv-type-ext is a variable, defined to equal <tlv-type-ext> if
present, or 0 otherwise.
tlv-fulltype is a variable, defined by:
* tlv-fulltype := 256 * <tlv-type> + tlv-type-ext
<index-start> and <index-stop> when present, in an address block TLV
only, are each an 8 bit unsigned integer field.
index-start and index-stop are variables, defined according to
Table 5. The variable end-index is defined as follows:
* For message and packet TLVs:
+ end-index := 0
* For address block TLVs:
+ end-index := <num-addr> - 1
An address block TLV applies to the address objects from position
index-start to position index-stop (inclusive) in the address
block, where the first address object has position zero.
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| thassingleindex | thasmultiindex | index-start := | index-stop := |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
| 0 | 0 | 0 | end-index |
| 1 | 0 | <index-start> | <index-start> |
| 0 | 1 | <index-start> | <index-stop> |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+
Table 5: Interpretation of the thassingleindex and thasmultiindex
tlv-flags
number-values is a variable, defined by:
* number-values := index-stop - index-start + 1
<length> is omitted or is an 8 or 16 bit unsigned integer field
according to Table 4. If the tismultivalue tlv-flag is set ('1')
then <length> MUST be an integral multiple of number-values, and
the variable single-length is defined by:
* single-length := <length> / number-values
If the tismultivalue tlv-flag is cleared ('0'), then the variable
single-length is defined by:
* single-length := <length>
<value> if present (see Table 4) is a field of length <length>
octets. In an address block TLV, <value> is associated with the
address objects from positions index-start to index-stop,
inclusive. If the tismultivalue tlv-flag is cleared ('0') then
the whole of this field is associated with each of the indicated
address objects. If the tismultivalue tlv-flag is set ('1') then
this field is divided equally into number-values fields, each of
length single-length octets, and these are associated, in order,
with the indicated address objects.
5.4.2. TLV Inclusion and Constraints
A TLV associates an attribute with a packet, a message or one or more
consecutive address objects in an address block. The interpretation
and processing of this attribute, and the relationship (including
order of processing) between different attributes associated with the
same entity MUST be defined by a protocol which uses this
specification.
If the appropriate flags (pnouniord for a packet TLV block, mnouniord
for a message TLV block or an address block TLV block) are cleared
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
('0'), then the following constraints MUST be respected. These flags
MUST always be cleared ('0') unless a protocol using this
specification defines otherwise. Protocols SHOULD only define use of
these flags when necessary, and then MUST indicate what constraints
do apply if each of the indicated flags is set ('1'); each of these
constraints SHOULD be retained unless otherwise necessary.
o TLVs in the same TLV block are sorted in non-descending tlv-
fulltype order.
o Two or more address TLVs with the same tlv-fulltype in the same
message are not associated with the same value of address object.
o TLVs with the same tlv-fulltype associated with the same address
block are sorted in ascending index-start order.
In addition, packet and message TLVs MUST be defined so as to
indicate whether two such TLVs with the same tlv-fulltype are, or are
not, allowed in the same packet or message TLV block, respectively.
Note that the above constrains only the encoding of TLVs in a TLV
block for transmission, and do specifically NOT mandate any given
order of processing or interpretation by a protocol of the TLVs and
the entities to which these are associated.
Respecting the constraints above allows parsing and verification of a
TLV block in a single pass and allows terminating the search for a
TLV with a specific type without traversing the entire TLV block.
The constraints on address block TLVs ensure that encoded information
(entity-attributes) can be unambiguously decoded.
5.5. Malformed Elements
An element is malformed if it cannot be parsed according to its
syntactical specification (including if there are insufficient octets
available) or if a constraint (including, but not only, those
specified in Section 5.4.2) specified as one which MUST be satisfied,
is not. A protocol using this specification MUST specify the action,
or choice of actions, to be taken when a packet containing such
elements is received. Typical examples will include discarding any
affected message(s), or discarding the complete packet.
6. IANA Considerations
This document introduces four namespaces that require registration:
Message Types, Packet TLV Types, Message TLV Types and Address Block
TLV Types. This section specifies IANA registries for these
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
namespaces, and provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority regarding registrations in these namespaces.
The following terms are used with the meanings defined in [BCP26]:
"Namespace", "Assigned Value", "Registration", "Unassigned",
"Reserved", "Hierarchical Allocation", "Designated Expert".
The following policies are used with the meanings defined in [BCP26]:
"Private Use", "Expert Review", "Standards Action".
6.1. Expert Review: Evaluation Guidelines
For registration requests where an Expert Review is required, the
Designated Expert SHOULD take the following general recommendations
into consideration:
o The purposes of these registries are to support Standard and
Experimental MANET routing and related protocols, and extensions
to the same.
o The intention is that all registrations will be accompanied by a
published RFC.
o In order to allow for registration prior to the RFC being approved
for publication, the Designated Expert can approve the
registration once it seems clear that an RFC is expected to be
published.
o The Designated Expert will post a request to the MANET WG mailing
list, or to a successor hereto as designated by the Area Director,
for comments and reviews. This request will include a reference
to the Internet-Draft requesting the registration.
o Before a period of 30 days has passed, the Designated Expert will
either approve or deny the registration request and publish a note
of the decision to the MANET WG mailing list or its successor, as
well as informing IANA and the IESG. A denial note MUST be
justified by an explanation and, in cases where it is possible,
suggestions as to how the request can be modified so as to become
acceptable SHOULD be provided.
For the registry for Message Types, the following guidelines apply:
o Registration of a message type implies creation of two registries
for message type specific message TLVs and message type specific
address block TLVs. The document which requests the registration
of the message type MUST indicate how these message type specific
TLV types are to be allocated, from any options in [BCP26], and
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
any initial allocations. The Designated Expert SHOULD take the
allocation policies specified for these registries into
consideration in reviewing the message type allocation request.
For the registries for Packet TLV Types, Message TLV Types and
Address Block TLV Types, the following guidelines apply:
o These are Hierarchical Allocations, allocation of a type creates a
registry for the extended types corresponding to that type. The
document which requests the registration of the type MUST indicate
how these extended types are to be allocated, from any options in
[BCP26], and any initial allocations. Normally this allocation
should also be Expert Review, but with the possible allocation of
some type extensions as Reserved, Experimental and/or Private.
o TLV type values 0-7 MUST NOT be registered except when a
documented need exists that TLVs of a given type are required to
appear before all other TLVs in the TLV block as encoded for
transmission. Note that the need for a TLV to be processed before
other TLVs does not however automatically translate into a need
for the TLV to appear before all other TLVs in the TLV block (the
order in which TLVs are to be processed MUST be defined, if
applicable, in the protocols using this specification).
o The request for a TLV type MUST include the specification of the
permitted size, syntax of any internal structure of, and meaning
of, the value field (if any) of the TLV.
For the registries for Message TLV Types and Address Block TLV Types,
the following additional guidelines apply:
o TLV type values 0-127 are common for all message types. TLVs
which receive registrations from the 0-127 interval SHOULD be
modular in design to allow reuse among protocols.
o TLV type values 128-223 are message type specific TLV type values,
relevant only in the context of the containing message type.
Registration of TLV type values within the 128-223 interval
require that a registry in the 128-223 interval exists for a
specific message type value (see Section 6.2.1), and registrations
are made in accordance with the allocation policies specified for
these message type specific registries. Message type specific TLV
types SHOULD be registered for TLVs which the Designated Expert
deems too message type specific for registration of a 0-127 value.
Multiple different TLV definitions MAY be assigned the same TLV
type value within the 128-223 interval, given that they are
associated with different message type specific TLV type
registries. Where possible, existing global TLV definitions and
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
modular global TLV definitions for registration in the 0-127 range
SHOULD be used.
6.2. Message Types
A new registry for message types must be created, with initial
assignments and allocation policies as specified in Table 6.
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 0-223 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
| 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
Table 6: Message Types
6.2.1. Message Type Specific TLV Registry Creation
When a message type is registered then registries MUST be specified
for both message type specific message TLVs (Table 8) and message
type specific address block TLVs (Table 10). A document which
creates a message type specific TLV registry MUST also specify the
mechanism by which message specific TLV types are allocated, from
among those in [BCP26].
6.3. Packet TLV Types
A new registry for packet TLV types must be created, with initial
assignments and allocation policies as specified in Table 7.
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 0-223 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
| 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
Table 7: Packet TLV Types
6.3.1. Packet TLV Type Extension Registry Creation
When a packet TLV type is registered then a new registry for type
extensions of that type must be created. A document which defines a
packet TLV type MUST also specify the mechanism by which its type
extensions are allocated, from among those in [BCP26].
6.4. Message TLV Types
A new registry for message type independent message TLV types must be
created, with initial assignments and allocation policies as
specified in Table 8.
+---------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 0-127 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
| 128-223 | Message Type Specific | Reserved, see Table 9 |
| 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
Table 8: Message TLV Types
Message TLV Types 128-223 are reserved for message type specific
Message TLVs, for which a new registry is created with the
registration of a message type, and with initial assignments and
allocation policies as specified in Table 9.
+---------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| 0-127 | Common to all Message Types | Reserved |
| 128-223 | Message Type Specific | See Below |
| 224-255 | Common to all Message Types | Reserved |
+---------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
Table 9: Message Specific Message TLV Types
Allocation policies for message type specific message TLV types MUST
be specified when creating the registry associated with the
containing message type, see Section 6.2.1.
6.4.1. Message TLV Type Extension Registry Creation
If a message TLV type is registered then a new registry for type
extensions of that type must be created. A document which defines a
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
message TLV type MUST also specify the mechanism by which its type
extensions are allocated, from among those in [BCP26].
6.5. Address Block TLV Types
A new registry for message type independent address block TLV types
must be created, with initial assignments and allocation policies as
specified in Table 10.
+---------+-----------------------+------------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-----------------------+------------------------+
| 0-127 | Unassigned | Expert Review |
| 128-223 | Message Type Specific | Reserved, see Table 11 |
| 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+---------+-----------------------+------------------------+
Table 10: Address Block TLV Types
Address Block TLV Types 128-223 are reserved for message type
specific Address Block TLVs, for which a new registry is created with
the registration of a message type, and with initial assignments and
allocation policies as specified in Table 11.
+---------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| 0-127 | Common to all Message Types | Reserved |
| 128-223 | Message Type Specific | See Below |
| 224-255 | Common to all Message Types | Reserved |
+---------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
Table 11: Message Specific Address Block TLV Types
Allocation policies for message type specific address block TLV types
MUST be specified when creating the registry associated with the
containing message type, see Section 6.2.1.
6.5.1. Address Block TLV Type Extension Registry Creation
When an address block TLV type is registered then a new registry for
type extensions of that type must be created. A document which
defines a message TLV type MUST also specify the mechanism by which
its type extensions are allocated, from among those in [BCP26].
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
7. Security Considerations
This specification does not describe a protocol; it describes a
packet format. As such it does not specify any security
considerations, these are matters for a protocol using this
specification. However some security mechanisms are enabled by this
specification, and may form part of a protocol using this
specification. Mechanisms which may form part of an authentication
and integrity approach in a protocol using this specification, are
described in Section 7.1. Mechanisms which may form part of a
confidentiality approach in a protocol using this specification, are
described in Section 7.2. There is however no requirement that a
protocol using this specification should use either.
7.1. Authentication and Integrity Suggestions
The authentication and integrity suggestions made here, are based on
the intended usage in Appendix B, specifically that:
o Messages are designed to be carriers of protocol information and
MAY, at each hop, be forwarded and/or processed by the protocol
using this specification.
o Packets are designed to carry a number of messages between
neighboring MANET routers in a single transmission and over a
single logical hop.
Consequently:
o For forwarded messages where the message is unchanged by
forwarding MANET routers, then end-to-end authentication and
integrity MAY be implemented, between MANET routers with an
existing security association, by including a suitable message TLV
containing a cryptographic signature in the message. Since <msg-
hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit> are the only fields that should be
modified when such a message is forwarded in this manner, this
signature can be calculated based on the entire message, including
the message header, with the <msg-hop-count> and <msg-hop-limit>
fields set to 0 if present.
o Hop-by-hop packet level authentication and integrity MAY be
implemented, between MANET routers with an existing security
association, by including a suitable packet TLV containing a
cryptographic signature to the packet. Since packets are received
as transmitted, this signature can be calculated based on the
entire packet, or on parts thereof as appropriate.
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
7.2. Confidentiality Suggestions
This specification does not explicitly enable protecting packet/
message confidentiality. Such confidentiality would normally, when
required, be provided hop-by-hop either by link-layer mechanisms, or
at the IP layer using [RFC4301], and would apply to a packet only.
It is possible, however, for a protocol using this specification to
protect the confidentiality of information included in a packet,
message or address block TLV by specifying that the value field of
that TLV type be encrypted, as well as specifying the encryption
mechanism.
In an extreme case, all information can be encrypted by defining
either:
o A packet, consisting of only a packet header (with no messages),
and containing a packet TLV, where the packet TLV type indicates
that its value field contains one or more encrypted messages.
Upon receipt, and once this packet TLV is successfully decrypted,
these messages may then be parsed according to this specification
and processed according to the protocol using this specification.
o A message, consisting of only a message header and a single
message TLV, where the message TLV type indicates that its value
field contains an encrypted version of the message's remaining
message TLVs, address blocks and address block TLVs. Upon
receipt, and once this message TLV is successfully decrypted, the
complete message may then be parsed according to this
specification and processed according to the protocol using this
specification.
In either case, the protocol MUST define the encrypted TLV type, as
well as the format of the encrypted data block contained in the value
field of the TLV.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[BCP26] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
BCP 26, May 2008.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[SingleUNIX] IEEE Std 1003.1, The Open Group, and ISO/IEC JTC
1/SC22/WG15, "Single UNIX Specification, Version 3,
2004 Edition", April 2004.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3626] Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "The Optimized Link State
Routing Protocol", RFC 3626, October 2003.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[Stevens] Stevens, W., "TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1 - The
Protocols.", 1994.
Appendix A. Multiplexing and Demultiplexing
The packet and message format specified in this document is designed
to allow zero or more messages to be contained within a single
packet. Such messages may be from the same or from different
protocols. Thus, a multiplexing and demultiplexing process MUST be
present.
Multiplexing messages on a given MANET router into a single packet,
rather than to have each message generate its own packet, reduces the
total number of octets, and the number of packets transmitted by that
MANET router.
The multiplexing and demultiplexing process running on a given UDP
port or IP protocol number, and its associated protocols, MUST:
o For each message type, a protocol - unless specified otherwise,
the one making the IANA reservation for that message type - MUST
be designated as the "owner" of that message type.
o The packet header fields, including the Packet TLV block, is used
by the multiplexing and demultiplexing process, which MAY make
such information available for use its protocol instances.
o The <pkt-seq-num> field, if present, contains a sequence number
which is incremented by 1 for each packet generated by a node.
The sequence number after 65535 is 0. In other words, the
sequence number "wraps" in the usual way.
o Incoming messages MUST be either silently discarded or MUST be
delivered to the instance of the protocol which owns the
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
associated message type. Incoming messages SHOULD NOT be
delivered to any other protocol instances and SHOULD NOT be
delivered to more than one protocol instance.
o Outgoing messages of a given type MUST be generated only by the
protocol instance which owns that message type and delivered to
the multiplexing and demultiplexing process.
o If two protocols both wish to use the same message type then this
interaction SHOULD be specified by the protocol which is the
designated owner of that message type.
Appendix B. Intended Usage
This appendix describes the intended usage of message header fields
including their content and use. Alternative uses of this
specification are permitted.
The message format specified in this document is designed to carry
MANET routing protocol signaling between MANET routers, and to
support scope limited flooding as well as point-to-point delivery.
Messages are designed to be able to be forwarded over one or more
logical hops, in a new packet for each logical hop. Each logical hop
may consist of one or more IP hops.
Specifically Scope limited flooding is supported for messages by:
o The <msg-orig-addr> field, if present, contains the unique
identifier of the MANET router which originated the message.
o The <msg-seq-num> field, if present, contains a sequence number
which starts at 0 when first message of a given type is generated
by the originator node, and is incremented by 1 for each message
generated of that type. The sequence number after 65535 is 0. In
other words, the sequence number "wraps" in the usual way.
o If the <msg-orig-addr> and <msg-seq-num> fields are both present,
then the message header provides for duplicate suppression, using
the identifier consisting of the message's <msg-orig-addr>, <msg-
seq-num>, and <msg-type>. These serve to uniquely identify the
message in the MANET within the time period until <msg-seq-num> is
repeated, i.e. wraps around to a matching value.
o <msg-hop-limit> field, if present, contains the number of hops on
which the packet is allowed to travel before being discarded by a
MANET router. The <msg-hop-limit> is set by the message
originator and is used to prevent messages from endlessly
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
circulating in a MANET. When forwarding a message, a MANET router
SHOULD decrease the <msg-hop-limit> by 1, and the message SHOULD
be discarded when <msg-hop-limit> reaches 0.
o <msg-hop-count> field, if present, contains the number of hops on
which the packet has traveled across the MANET. The <msg-hop-
count< is set to 0 by the message originator and is used to
prevent messages from endlessly circulating in a MANET. When
forwarding a message, a MANET router SHOULD increase <msg-hop-
count> by 1 and SHOULD discarded the message when <msg-hop-count>
reaches 255.
o If the <msg-hop-limit> and <msg-hop-limit> fields are both
present, then the message header provides the information to make
forwarding decisions for scope limited flooding. This may be by
any appropriate flooding mechanism specified by a protocol using
this specification.
Appendix C. Examples
This appendix contains some examples of parts of this specification.
C.1. Address Block Examples
The following examples illustrate how some combinations of addresses
may be efficiently included in address blocks. These examples are
for IPv4, with address-length equal to 4. a, b, c etc. represent
distinct, non-zero, octet values.
Note that it is permissible to use a less efficient representation,
in particular one in which the ahashead and ahasfulltail flags are
cleared ('0'), and hence head-length = 0, tail-length = 0, mid-length
= address-length, and (with no address prefixes) the address block
consists of the number of addresses, <addr-flags> with value 0, and a
list of the unaggregated addresses. This is the most efficient way
to represent a single address, and the only way to represent, for
example, a.b.c.d and e.f.g.h in one address block.
Examples:
o To include a.b.c.d, a.b.e.f and a.b.g.h:
* head-length = 2;
* tail-length = 0;
* mid-length = 2;
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
* <addr-flags> has ahashead set (value 128);
* <tail-length> and <tail> are omitted.
The address block is then 3 128 2 a b c d e f g h (11 octets).
o To include a.b.c.g and d.e.f.g:
* head-length = 0;
* tail-length = 1;
* mid-length = 3;
* <addr-flags> has ahasfulltail set (value 64);
* <head-length> and <head> are omitted.
The address block is then 2 64 1 g a b c d e f (10 octets).
o To include a.b.d.e and a.c.d.e:
* head-length = 1;
* tail-length = 2;
* mid-length = 1;
* <addr-flags> has ahashead and ahasfulltail set (value 192).
The address block is then 2 192 1 a 2 d e b c (9 octets).
o To include a.b.0.0, a.c.0.0, and a.d.0.0:
* head-length = 1;
* tail-length = 2;
* mid-length = 1;
* <addr-flags> has ahashead and ahaszerotail set (value 160);
* <tail> is omitted.
The address block is then 3 160 1 a 2 b c d (8 octets).
o To include a.b.0.0 and c.d.0.0:
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
* head-length = 0;
* tail-length = 2;
* mid-length = 2;
* <addr-flags> has ahaszerotail set (value 32);
* <head> and <tail> are omitted.
The address block is then 2 32 2 a b c d (7 octets).
o To include a.b.0.0/n and c.d.0.0/n:
* head-length = 0;
* tail-length = 2;
* mid-length = 2;
* <addr-flags> has ahaszerotail and ahassingleprelen set (value
48);
* <head> and <tail> are omitted.
The address block is then 2 48 2 a b c d n (8 octets).
o To include a.b.0.0/n and c.d.0.0/m:
* head-length = 0;
* tail-length = 2;
* mid-length = 2;
* <addr-flags> has ahaszerotail and ahasmultiprelen set (value
40);
* <head> and <tail> are omitted.
The address block is then 2 40 2 a b c d n m (9 octets).
C.2. TLV Examples
Assuming the definition of an address block TLV with type EXAMPLE1
(and no type extension) which has single octet values per address,
then if values a, a, b and c are to be associated with the four
addresses in the preceding address block, where c is a default value
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
that can be omitted, then this can be done in a number of ways.
Examples:
o Using one multivalue TLV covering all of the addresses:
* <tlv-flags> has thasvalue and tismultivalue set (value 20);
* <index-start> and <index-stop> are omitted;
* <length> = 4 (single-length = 1).
* The TLV is then EXAMPLE1 20 4 a a b c (7 octets).
o Using one multivalue TLV omitting the last address:
* <tlv-flags> has thasmultiindex, thasvalue and tismultivalue set
(value 52);
* <index-start> = 0;
* <index-stop> = 2
* <length> = 3 (single-length = 1).
* The TLV is then EXAMPLE1 52 0 2 3 a a b (8 octets).
o Using two single value TLVs, omitting the last address. First:
* <tlv-flags> has thasmultiindex and thasvalue set (value 48);
* <index-start> = 0;
* <index-stop> = 1;
* <length> = 1;
* <value> = a.
* The TLV is then EXAMPLE1 48 0 1 1 a (6 octets).
Second:
* <tlv-flags> has thassingleindex and thasvalue set (value 80);
* <index-start> = 2;
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
* <index-stop> is omitted;
* <length> = 1;
* <value> = b.
* The TLV is then EXAMPLE1 80 2 1 b (5 octets).
Total length of TLVs is 11 octets.
In this case the first of these is the most efficient. In other
cases patterns such as the others may be preferred. Regardless of
efficiency, any of these may be used.
Assuming the definition of an address block TLV with type EXAMPLE2
(and no type extension) which has no value, which is to be associated
with the second and third addresses in an address block, then this
can be indicated with a single TLV:
o <tlv-flags> has thasmultiindex set (value 32);
o <index-start> = 1;
o <index-stop> = 2;
o <length> and <value> are omitted.
o The TLV is then EXAMPLE2 32 1 2 (4 octets).
Assuming the definition of a message TLV with type EXAMPLE3 (and no
type extension) which can take a value field of any length, for such
a TLV with 8 octets of data (a to h):
o <tlv-flags> has thasvalue set (value 16);
o <index-start> and <index-stop> are omitted;
o <length> = 8.
o The TLV is then EXAMPLE3 16 8 a b c d e f g h (11 octets).
If, in this example, the number of data octets were 256 or greater
then <tlv-flags> would also have thasextlen set and have value 24.
The length would require two octets (most significant first). The
TLV length would be 4 + N octets, where N is the number of data
octets (it can be 3 + N octets if N is 255 or less).
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
Appendix D. Illustrations
This informative appendix illustrates the elements which are
normatively specified in Section 5.
Bits labeled Rsv or R should be cleared ('0'). Bits labeled C or M
may be cleared ('0') or set ('1').
D.1. Packet
Possible options for the <packet> element. These are differentiated
by the flags field in the first octet. The packet may include any
number (zero or more) of Messages. The number of Messages is
determined from when the packet is exhausted, given the packet length
from the network layer.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0|0|C|R| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Message |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|1|0|C|R| Packet Sequence Number | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0|1|C|R| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Packet TLV Block |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Message |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|1|1|C|R| Packet Sequence Number | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Packet TLV Block |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
D.2. Message
Possible options for the <message> element. These are differentiated
by their second (flags) octet. The length of the Message Body is
determined using the Message Size field, which is the combined length
of all the fields shown.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |0|0|0|0|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |1|0|0|0|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |0|1|0|0|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Limit | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |1|1|0|0|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Limit | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |0|0|1|0|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |1|0|1|0|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |0|1|1|0|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Limit | Hop Count | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |1|1|1|0|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Limit | Hop Count | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |0|0|0|1|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Sequence Number | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |1|0|0|1|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Sequence Number | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |0|1|0|1|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Limit | Message Sequence Number | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |1|1|0|1|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Limit | Message Sequence Number | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |0|0|1|1|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count | Message Sequence Number | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |1|0|1|1|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count | Message Sequence Number | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |0|1|1|1|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Limit | Hop Count | Message Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |1|1|1|1|C| Rsv | Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Limit | Hop Count | Message Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Message Body |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
D.3. Message Body
Format of a message body (the <message> element excluding its initial
<msg-header> element). The message body includes one Message TLV
Block (containing zero or more TLVs) and may include any number (zero
or more) of Address Block and Address TLV Block pairs.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Message TLV Block |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Address Block |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Address TLV Block |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Address Block |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Address TLV Block |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
D.4. Address Block
Possible options for the <addr-block> element. These are
differentiated by their second (flags) octet. The number of Mid
elements is equal to the number of addresses (except when mid-length
is zero, when there are no Mid elements). Where a variable number of
Prefix Length fields is shown, their number is equal to the number of
addresses.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|0|0|0|0| Rsv | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|0|0|0|0| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|1|0|0|0| Rsv | Tail Length | Tail |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail (cont) | Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|1|0|0|0| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Tail Length | Tail |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|0|1|0|0| Rsv | Tail Length | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|0|1|0|0| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Tail Length | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: ... :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|0|0|1|0| Rsv | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|0|0|1|0| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|1|0|1|0| Rsv | Tail Length | Tail |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail (cont) | Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|1|0|1|0| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Tail Length | Tail |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|0|1|1|0| Rsv | Tail Length | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|0|1|1|0| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Tail Length | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: ... :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|0|0|0|1| Rsv | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | Prefix Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|0|0|0|1| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|1|0|0|1| Rsv | Tail Length | Tail |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail (cont) | Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|1|0|0|1| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Tail Length | Tail |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
: ... :
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |0|0|1|0|1| Rsv | Tail Length | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Mid | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number Addrs |1|0|1|0|1| Rsv | Head Length | Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Tail Length | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: ... :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid | Prefix Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
D.5. TLV Block
Format of a <tlv-block> element. There may be any number (zero or
more) of TLVs, with total length of the TLVs (in octets) equal to the
Length field.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| TLV |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
: ... :
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| TLV |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
D.6. TLV
Possible options for the <tlv> element. These are differentiated by
their second (flags) octet. If there are no index fields then this
may be a packet, message or address block TLV, if there are one or
two index fields then this must be an address block TLV. The Length
field gives the length of the value field (in octets).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|0|0|0|0|0|Rsv|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|0|0|0|0|0|Rsv| Type Ext |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|1|0|0|0|0|Rsv| Index Start |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|1|0|0|0|0|Rsv| Type Ext | Index Start |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|0|1|0|0|0|Rsv| Index Start | Index Stop |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|0|1|0|0|0|Rsv| Type Ext | Index Start |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index Stop |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|0|0|1|0|M|Rsv| Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|0|0|1|0|M|Rsv| Type Ext | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|1|0|1|0|0|Rsv| Index Start | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|1|0|1|0|0|Rsv| Type Ext | Index Start |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|0|1|1|0|M|Rsv| Index Start | Index Stop |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|0|1|1|0|M|Rsv| Type Ext | Index Start |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index Stop | Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|0|0|0|1|M|Rsv| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|0|0|1|1|M|Rsv| Type Ext | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (cont) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|1|0|1|1|0|Rsv| Index Start | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (cont) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|1|0|1|1|0|Rsv| Type Ext | Index Start |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |0|0|1|1|1|M|Rsv| Index Start | Index Stop |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |1|0|1|1|1|M|Rsv| Type Ext | Index Start |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index Stop | Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Value |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
Appendix E. Complete Example
The following example packet, using IPv4 addresses (hence address-
length is four octets) is included with the intent to exemplify how
packet and message headers are constructed, and how addresses and
attributes are encoded using address blocks and TLV blocks. This
example is specifically not constructed to exhibit maximum message or
packet size reduction. Appendix D contains illustrations of all
syntactical elements.
The packet header has the phasseqnum flag set of its flags field set
(value 8), and hence has a Packet Sequence Number, but no packet TLV
block.
The packet contains a single message with length 54 octets. This
message has the mhasorig, mhashoplimit, mhashopcount and mhasseqnum
flags of its flags octet set (value 240), and hence includes an
Originator Address, a Hop Limit, a Hop Count and a Message Sequence
Number (which is type independent). The message has a message TLV
block with content length 9 octets, containing a single message TLV.
This TLV has the thasvalue flag of its flags octet set (value 16),
and hence contains a Value field, with preceding value length 6
octets. The message then has two address blocks each with a
following address TLV block.
The first address block contains 2 address prefixes. It has the
ahaszerotail and ahassingleprelen flags of its flags octet set (value
48), and hence has no head (head-length is zero octets). It has a
tail-length of 2 octets, hence mid-length is two octets. The two
tail octets of each address are not included (since ahaszerotail is
set) and have value zero. The address block has a single Prefix
Length. The following address TLV block is empty (content length 0
octets).
The second address block contains 3 addresses. It has the ahashead
flag of its flags octet set (value 128), and has head length 2
octets, no tail (tail-length is zero octets) and hence mid-length is
two octets. It is followed by an address TLV block, with content
length 9 octets, containing two address block TLVs. The first of
these TLVs has the thasvalue flag of its flags octet set (value 16),
and has a single Value of length 2 octets, which applies to all of
the addresses in the address block. The second of these TLVs has the
thasmultiindex flag of its flags octet set (value 32), and hence has
no value length or value fields. It has two index fields (Index
Start and Index Stop), which indicate those addresses this TLV
applies to (inclusive range, counting from zero).
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0| Packet Sequence Number | Message Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0| Orig Addr |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originator Address (cont) | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count | Message Sequence Number |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1| TLV Type |0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (cont) |0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0|0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| Mid | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | Prefix Length |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1|1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| Head |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head (cont) | Mid | Mid |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mid (cont) | Mid |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1| TLV Type |0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value | TLV Type |0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index Start | Index Stop |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Appendix F. Contributors
This specification is the result of the joint efforts of the
following contributors from the OLSRv2 Design Team, listed
alphabetically:
o Cedric Adjih, INRIA, France, <Cedric.Adjih@inria.fr>
o Emmanuel Baccelli, INRIA, France, <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
o Thomas Heide Clausen, LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, France,
<T.Clausen@computer.org>
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
o Justin W. Dean, NRL, USA, <jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
o Christopher Dearlove, BAE Systems, UK,
<chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
o Satoh Hiroki, Hitachi SDL, Japan,
<hiroki.satoh.yj@sdl.hitachi.co.jp>
o Philippe Jacquet, INRIA, France, <Philippe.Jacquet@inria.fr>
o Monden Kazuya, Hitachi SDL, Japan,
<kazuya.monden.vw@sdl.hitachi.co.jp>
Appendix G. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the team behind OLSR [RFC3626],
including Anis Laouiti (INT, France), Pascale Minet, Laurent Viennot
(both at INRIA, France), and Amir Qayyum (Center for Advanced
Research in Engineering, Pakistan) for their contributions.
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the following people
for intense technical discussions, early reviews and comments on the
specification and its components (listed alphabetically):
o Brian Adamson (NRL)
o Teco Boot (Infinity Networks)
o Florent Brunneau (LIX)
o Ian Chakeres (Motorola)
o Alan Cullen (BAE Systems)
o Ulrich Herberg (LIX)
o Joe Macker (NRL)
o Yasunori Owada (Niigata University)
o Charlie E. Perkins (WiChorus)
o Andreas Schjonhaug (LIX)
and the entire IETF MANET working group.
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
Authors' Addresses
Thomas Heide Clausen
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, France
Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
URI: http://www.thomasclausen.org/
Christopher M. Dearlove
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
Phone: +44 1245 242194
EMail: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
URI: http://www.baesystems.com/
Justin W. Dean
Naval Research Laboratory
Phone: +1 202 767 3397
EMail: jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil
URI: http://pf.itd.nrl.navy.mil/
Cedric Adjih
INRIA Rocquencourt
Phone: +33 1 3963 5215
EMail: Cedric.Adjih@inria.fr
URI: http://menetou.inria.fr/~adjih/
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft MANET packet format August 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Clausen, et al. Expires February 2, 2009 [Page 60]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/