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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

6lo                                                          Lijo Thomas
Internet-Draft                                                     C-DAC
Intended status: Standards Track                               P. Akshay
Expires: January 4, 2018                     Indian Institute of Science
                                                      Satish Anamalamudi
                                         Huaiyin Institute of Technology
                                                             S.V.R.Anand
                                                            Malati Hegde
                                             Indian Institute of Science
                                                              C. Perkins
                                                               Futurewei
                                                            July 3, 2017


        Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header
                   draft-lijo-6lo-expiration-time-04

Abstract

   This document specifies a new type for the 6LoWPAN routing header
   containing the delivery deadline time for data packets.  The deadline
   time enables forwarding and scheduling decisions for time critical
   IoT M2M applications that need deterministic delay guarantees over
   constrained networks and operate within time-synchronized networks.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018.

Copyright Notice

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





Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  6LoRHE Generic Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Deadline-6LoRHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Deadline-6LoRHE Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Deadline-6LoRHE in Three Network Scenarios  . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Scenario 1: Endpoints in the same DODAG (N1) in non-
           storing mode. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Scenario 2: Endpoints in Networks with Dissimilar L2
           Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  Scenario 3: Packet transmission across different DODAGs
           (N1 to N2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are likely to be deployed for
   real time industrial applications requiring end-to-end delay
   guarantees [I-D.grossman-detnet-use-cases].  A Deterministic Network
   ("detnet") typically requires some data packets to reach their
   receivers within strict time bounds.  Intermediate nodes use the
   deadline information to make appropriate packet forwarding and
   scheduling decisions to meet the time bounds.

   The draft [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] specifies the 6LoWPAN
   Routing Header (6LoRH), compression schemes for RPL routing (source
   routing) operation [RFC6554], header compression of RPL Packet
   Information [RFC6553], and IP-in-IP encapsulation.  This document
   specifies a new Deadline-6LoRHE type for the 6LoWPAN Dispatch Page 1,
   so that the deadline time of data packets can be included within the



Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


   6LoWPAN routing header.  This document also specifies handling of the
   deadline time when packets traverse through time-synchronized
   networks operating in different timezones or distinct reference
   clocks.

2.  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].

   This document uses terminology consistent with the terminology used
   in [RFC6550] and [I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology].  Also, in this
   document, the terms "expiration time", "delivery deadline time", and
   "deadline" are used interchangeably with the same meaning.

3.  6LoRHE Generic Format

   Note: this section is not normative.  It is included for convenience,
   and may be deleted in a later revision of this document.  The generic
   header format of the 6LoRHE is specified in
   [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch].  Figure 1 illustrates the 6LoRHE
   generic format.

      0                   1
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-             ...               -+
     |1|0|1| Length  |      Type     |                                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-             ...               -+
                                      <--          length           -->

                          Figure 1: 6LoRHE format

   o  Length: Length of the 6LoRHE expressed in bytes, excluding the
      first 2 bytes.  This enables a node to skip a 6LoRHE if the Type
      is not recognized/supported.

   o  Type: Type of the 6LoRHE.

   o  length: variable

4.  Deadline-6LoRHE

   The Deadline-6LoRHE (see Figure 2) is an elective 6LoRH (i.e., a
   6loRHE) that provides the deadline time (DT) for an IPv6 datagram in
   a compressed form.  Along with the deadline, the header can include
   the packet Origination Time (OT), to enable a close estimate of the



Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


   total delay incurred by a packet.  The OT field is initialized by the
   sender using the current time at the outgoing network interface
   through which the packet is forwarded.

   The deadline field contains the value of the delivery deadline time
   for the packet.  The packet SHOULD be delivered to the Receiver
   before this time.

      packet_deadline_time = packet_origination_time + max_delay

   All nodes within the network SHOULD process the Deadline-6LoRHE in
   order to support delay-sensitive deterministic applications.  The
   packet deadline time (DT) and origination time (OT) are represented
   in time units determined by a scaling parameter in the routing
   header.  One of the time units is the Network ASN (Absolute Slot
   Number) which can be used in case of a time slotted synchronized
   network, for instance a 6TiSCH network, where global time is
   maintained in the units of slot lengths of a certain resolution.

   The delay experienced by packets in the network is a useful metric
   for network diagnostics and performance monitoring.  Whenever the
   packets crosses into a network using a different reference clock, the
   Origination Time field is updated to represent the same Origination
   Time as expressed using the reference clock of the outgoing interface
   into the new network.  This is the same as the current time when the
   packet is transmitted into the new network, minus the delay already
   experienced by the packet, say 't'.  In effect, to the newly entered
   network, the packet will appear to have originated 't' time units
   earlier with respect to the reference clock of the new network.

   Origination Time in new network = current_time_in_new_network -
                  delay_already_experienced_in_previous_network(s)

5.  Deadline-6LoRHE Format

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1|0|1| Length  |  6LoRH Type   |O|D| DTL | OTL | TU| EXP | Rsv |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      DT (variable length)     | OT(variable length)(optional) |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 2: Deadline-6LoRHE format

   Length (5 bits): Length represents the total length of the Deadline-
   6LoRHE type measured in octets.




Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


   6LoRH Type: TBD

   O flag (1bit): Indicates the presence of Origination Time field.  '1'
   means the OT field is present, and '0' means it is absent.

   D flag (1 bit): The 'D' flag, set by the Sender, indicates the action
   to be taken when a 6LR detects that the deadline time has elapsed.
   If 'D' bit is 1, then the 6LR SHOULD drop the packet if the deadline
   time is elapsed.  If 'D' bit is 0, then the 6LR MAY ignore the
   deadline time and forward the packet.

   DTL (3 bits): Length of DT field.

   OTL (3 bits) : Length of OT field.

      For example, DTL = 000 means the deadline time in the 6LoRHE is 1
      octet (8 bits) long.  Similarly, OTL = 111 means the origination
      time is 8 octets (64 bits) long.

   TU (2 bits) : Indicates the time units for DT and OT fields

      00 : Time represented in microseconds
      01 : Time represented in seconds
      10 : Network ASN
      11 : Reserved

   EXP (3 bits) : Multiplication factor expressed as exponent of 10.

      The value of the DT field is multiplied by 10 to this power, to
      get the actual deadline time in the units represented by TU.  The
      default value of EXP is 000, so that the DT field is unaffected.

   Rsv (3 bits) : Reserved

   DT Value (8..64-bit) : Deadline Time value

   OT Value (8..64-bit) : Origination Time value

   Whenever a sender initiates the IP datagram, it includes the
   Deadline-6LoRHE along with other 6LoRH information.

   Example: Consider a 6TiSCH network with time-slot length of 10ms.
   Let the current ASN when the packet is originated be 54400, and the
   maximum allowable delay (max_delay) for the packet delivery is 1
   second from the packet origination, then:

      deadline_time = packet_origination_time + max_delay




Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


         = 55400 + 100 (in Network ASNs)
         = 55500(Network ASNs)

   Deadline-6LoRHE encoding with 'O' flag set to 1 :

      DTL = 001, OTL = 001, TU = '10', EXP = 2, DT = 0x22B, OT = 0x22A

6.  Deadline-6LoRHE in Three Network Scenarios

   In this section, Deadline-6LoRHE operation is described for 3 network
   scenarios.  Figure 3 depicts a constrained time-synchronized LLN that
   has two subnets N1 and N2, connected through LBRs
   [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router] with different reference clock times
   T1 and T2.

                          +-------------------+
                          | Time Synchronized |
                          |      Network      |
                          +---------+---------+
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |
                     +--------------+--------------+
                     |                             |
                  +-----+                       +-----+
                  |     | Backbone              |     | Backbone
             o    |     | router                |     | router
                  +-----+                       +-----+
             o                  o               o
                 o    o   o               o  o   o  o   o  o
            o      LLN    o                 o  LLN   o  o
               o   o    o      o             o o o     o  o
         6LoWPAN Network (subnet N1)   6LoWPAN Network (subnet N2)

                 Figure 3: Intra-network Timezone Scenario

6.1.  Scenario 1: Endpoints in the same DODAG (N1) in non-storing mode.

   In scenario 1, shown in Figure 4, the Sender 'S' has an IP datagram
   to be routed to a Receiver 'R' within the same DODAG.  For the route
   segment from Sender to 6LBR, the Sender includes a Deadline-6LoRHE by
   encoding the deadline time contained in the inband-OAM header
   extension.  Then 6LR begins hop-by-hop operation to forward the
   packet towards the 6LBR.  Once 6LBR receives the IP datagram, it
   generates a IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulated packet when sending the packet
   downwards to the Receiver [I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo].  The 6LBR
   copies the Deadline-6LoRHE from the Sender originated IP header to




Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


   the outer IP header.  The Deadline-6LoRHE contained in the inner IP
   header is elided.

                              +-------+
                   ^          | 6LBR  |       |
                   |          |       |       |
                   |          +-------+       |
           Default |      (F)/      /| \      | IP-in-IP
           routing |     /  \      / |  \     |      Encapsulation
                   |    /    \   (C) |  (D)   |
                   |  (A)    (B) /   | / |\   |
                   |  /|\     |\:   (E)  : R  |
                     S : :    :     / \       V

             Figure 4: End points within same DODAG(subnet N1)

   At the tunnel endpoint of IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation, the Deadline-
   6LoRHE is copied back from the outer header to inner header, and the
   inner IP packet is delivered to 'R'.

6.2.  Scenario 2: Endpoints in Networks with Dissimilar L2 Technologies.

   In scenario 2, shown in Figure 5, the Sender 'S' (belonging to DODAG
   1) has IP datagram to be routed to a Receiver 'R' over a time-
   synchronized IPv6 network.  For the route segment from 'S' to 6LBR,
   'S' includes a Deadline-6LoRHE.  Subsequently, 6LR will perform hop-
   by-hop operation to forward the packet towards the 6LBR.  Once the IP
   datagram reaches 6LBR of DODAG1, it encodes the deadline time (and,
   if available, the origination time) into the In-band OAM header
   extension, [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data] and passes the datagram to
   the IPv6 layer for further routing.




















Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


                              +----------------+
                              | Time           |
                              | synchronized   |------R
                              | Network        |
                              +----------------+
                                      |
                                      |
                            ----------+-----------
                     ^                |
                     |            +---+---+
                     |            | 6LBR  |
            Default  |            |       |
             routing |            +------++
                     |        (F)/      /| \
                     |       /  \      / |  \
                     |      /    \   (C) |  (D)
                       :  (A)    (B) /   | / |\
                          /|\     |\:   (E)  :
                         S : :    :     / \
                                       :   :

      Figure 5: Packet transmission in Dissimilar L2 Technologies or
                                 Internet

   The IP datagram is routed to another time synchronized deterministic
   network following its own distinct reference clock, so the deadline
   time in In-band OAM has to be updated according to the measurement of
   the current time in the new network.

6.3.  Scenario 3: Packet transmission across different DODAGs (N1 to
      N2).

   Consider the scenario depicted in Figure 6, in which the Sender 'S'
   (belonging to DODAG 1) has an IP datagram to be sent to Receiver 'R'
   belonging to another DODAG (DODAG 2).  The operation of this scenario
   can be decomposed into combination of case 1 and case 2 scenarios.
   For the route segment from 'S' to 6LBR, 'S' includes the Deadline-
   6LoRHE.  Subsequently, each 6LR will perform hop-by-hop operation to
   forward the packet towards the 6LBR.  Once the IP datagram reaches
   6LBR1 of DODAG1, it applies the same rule as described in Case 2
   while routing the packet to LBR2 over a (likely) time synchronized
   wired backhaul.  The wired side of LBR2 can be mapped to receiver of
   Case 2.  Once the packet reaches LBR2, it updates the Deadline-6LoRHE
   by adding the current time of DODAG2.  Further, it generates an IPv6-
   in-IPv6 encapsulated packet when sending the packet downstream to the
   Receiver [I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo].





Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


                     Time Synchronized Network
                  -+---------------------------+-
                   |                           |
      DODAG1   +---+---+                   +---+---+   DODAG2
    Instance 1 | 6LBR1  |                  | 6LBR2 | Instance 2
               |       |                   |       |     |
               +-------+                   +-------+     |
           (F)/      /| \              (F)/      /| \    |
          /  \      / |  \            /  \      / |  \   |
         /    \   (C) |  (D)         /    \   (C) |  (D) |IP-in-IP
       (A)    (B) /   | / |\       (A)    (B) /   | / |\ | Encapsulation
       /|\     |\:   (E)  : :      /|\     |\:   (E)  : :|
      S : :    :     / \          : : :    :     / \     |
                    :   :                       :   R    V
   Network N1, time zone T1      NetWork N2, time zone T2

        Figure 6: Packet transmission in different DODAGs(N1 to N2)

   Consider an example of a 6TiSCH network in which S in DODAG1
   generates the packet at ASN 20000 to R in DODAG2.  Let the maximum
   allowable delay be 1 second.  The time-slot length in DODAG1 and
   DODAG2 is assumed to be 10ms.  Once the deadline time is encoded in
   Deadline-6LoRHE, the packet is forwarded to LBR of DODAG1.  Suppose
   the packet reaches LBR of DODAG1 at ASN 20050.

      current_time = ASN at LBR * slot_length_value

      remaining_time = deadline_time - current_time
      = ((packet_origination_time + max_delay) - current time)
      = (20000 + 100) - 20050
      = 50 (in Network ASNs)
      = 50 * 10^3 milliseconds.

   The remaining time is encoded in In-Band OAM (see Case 2) and
   forwarded to LBR2 over a different L2-interface, typically wired.
   Once the packet reaches LBR2, the deadline time in Deadline-6LoRHE is
   adjusted by adding or subtracting the difference between the
   reference clocks of the two networks, before forwarding the packet to
   its connected 6TiSCH network.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new 6LoWPAN Timestamp Header Type, and
   assigns a value (TBD) from the 6LoWPAN Dispatch Page1 number space.







Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


                        6LoRH Type      Value
                   +------------------+--------+
                   | Deadline-6LoRHE  | TBD    |
                   +------------------+--------+

                      Figure 7: Deadline-6LoRHE type

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC4944], [RFC6282] and [RFC6553]
   apply.  Using a compressed format as opposed to the full in-line
   format is logically equivalent and does not create an opening for a
   new threat when compared to [RFC6550], [RFC6553] and [RFC6554].

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Pascal Thubert for suggesting the idea and
   encouraging the work.  Thanks to Shwetha Bhandari's suggestions which
   were instrumental in extending the timing information to
   heterogeneous networks.  The authors acknowledge the 6TiSCH WG
   members for their inputs on the mailing list.  Special thanks to
   Jerry Daniel,Shalu Rajendran, Seema Kumar, Avinash Mohan and Anita
   Varghese for their support and valuable feedback.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]
              Palattella, M., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T., and Q. Wang,
              "Terminology in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE
              802.15.4e", draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology-09 (work in
              progress), June 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch]
              Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
              "6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-roll-routing-
              dispatch-05 (work in progress), October 2016.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.



Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


   [RFC6282]  Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
              Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
              JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.

   [RFC6553]  Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
              Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
              Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.

   [RFC6554]  Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
              Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
              for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
              Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
              P., <>, R., and d. daniel.bernier@bell.ca, "Data Fields
              for In-situ OAM", draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-05 (work
              in progress), May 2017.

   [I-D.grossman-detnet-use-cases]
              Grossman, E., Gunther, C., Thubert, P., Wetterwald, P.,
              Raymond, J., Korhonen, J., Kaneko, Y., Das, S., and Y.
              Zha, "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-grossman-
              detnet-use-cases-01 (work in progress), November 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]
              Thubert, P., "IPv6 Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-
              backbone-router-03 (work in progress), January 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo]
              Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "When to use
              RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6", draft-ietf-roll-
              useofrplinfo-15 (work in progress), June 2017.




Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


   [I-D.vilajosana-6tisch-minimal]
              Vilajosana, X. and K. Pister, "Minimal 6TiSCH
              Configuration", draft-vilajosana-6tisch-minimal-00 (work
              in progress), October 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Lijo Thomas
   C-DAC
   Trivandrum  695033
   India

   Email: lijo@cdac.in


   P.M. Akshay
   Indian Institute of Science
   Bangalore  560012
   India

   Email: akshaypm@ece.iisc.ernet.in


   Satish Anamalamudi
   Huaiyin Institute of Technology
   No.89 North Beijing Road, Qinghe District
   Huaian
   China

   Email: satishnaidu80@gmail.com


   S.V.R Anand
   Indian Institute of Science
   Bangalore  560012
   India

   Email: anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in


   Malati Hegde
   Indian Institute of Science
   Bangalore  560012
   India

   Email: malati@ece.iisc.ernet.in





Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         6lo Delivery Deadline Time              July 2017


   Charles E. Perkins
   Futurewei
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara  95050
   Unites States

   Email: charliep@computer.org












































Lijo Thomas, et al.      Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 13]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/