draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-10.txt   draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-11.txt 
Network Working Group S. Previdi Network Working Group S. Previdi
Internet-Draft Individual Internet-Draft Individual
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils, Ed.
Expires: September 18, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: September 29, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Leddy J. Leddy
Comcast Comcast
S. Matsushima S. Matsushima
Softbank Softbank
D. Voyer, Ed. D. Voyer, Ed.
Bell Canada Bell Canada
March 17, 2018 March 28, 2018
IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-10 draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-11
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet through a Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet through a
controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending an SR controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending an SR
header to the packet. A segment can represent any instruction, header to the packet. A segment can represent any instruction,
topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a flow through topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a flow through
any path (topological, or application/service based) while any path (topological, or application/service based) while
maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR domain. maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR domain.
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 18, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Data Planes supporting Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Data Planes supporting Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. SRv6 Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. SRv6 Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Segment Routing (SR) Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Segment Routing (SR) Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. SR Domain in a Service Provider Network . . . . . . . 6 2.3.1. SR Domain in a Service Provider Network . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2. SR Domain in a Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2. SR Domain in a Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH) . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. SRH TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. SRH TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.1. Ingress Node TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1.1. Ingress Node TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Egress Node TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.2. Egress Node TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.3. Opaque Container TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.3. Opaque Container TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
6.2.1. Selecting a hash algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.2.1. Selecting a hash algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2.2. Performance impact of HMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.2.2. Performance impact of HMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2.3. Pre-shared key management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2.3. Pre-shared key management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.3. Deployment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.3. Deployment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.1. Nodes within the SR domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.3.1. Nodes within the SR domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.2. Nodes outside of the SR domain . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.3.2. Nodes outside of the SR domain . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.3. SR path exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.3.3. SR path exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3.4. Impact of BCP-38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.3.4. Impact of BCP-38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1. Segment Routing Header TLVs Register . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.1. Segment Routing Header TLVs Register . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8.1. Linux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8.2. Cisco Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8.3. FD.io . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8.4. Barefoot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8.5. Juniper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Segment Routing Documents 1. Segment Routing Documents
Segment Routing terminology is defined in Segment Routing terminology is defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
The network programming paradigm The network programming paradigm
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] defines the basic [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] defines additional
functions associated to an SRv6 SID. functions associated to an SRv6 SID.
Segment Routing use cases are described in [RFC7855] and Segment Routing use cases are described in [RFC7855] and
[I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases]. [I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases].
Segment Routing protocol extensions are defined in Segment Routing protocol extensions are defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], and [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
skipping to change at page 15, line 24 skipping to change at page 15, line 24
SRH. SRH.
o If the HMAC TLV is present, the SRH H-Flag (Figure 4) MUST be set. o If the HMAC TLV is present, the SRH H-Flag (Figure 4) MUST be set.
o When the H-flag is set in the SRH, the router inspecting the SRH o When the H-flag is set in the SRH, the router inspecting the SRH
MUST find the HMAC TLV in the last 38 octets of the SRH. MUST find the HMAC TLV in the last 38 octets of the SRH.
3.1.6. NSH Carrier TLV 3.1.6. NSH Carrier TLV
The NSH Carrier TLV is a container used in order to carry TLVs that The NSH Carrier TLV is a container used in order to carry TLVs that
have been defined in [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]. The NSH Carrier TLV has the have been defined in [RFC8300]. The NSH Carrier TLV has the
following format: following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | Length | Flags | | Type | Length | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NSH Carried Object // // NSH Carried Object //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
o Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 6). o Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 6).
o Length: the total length of the TLV. o Length: the total length of the TLV.
o Flags: 8 bits. No flags are defined in this document. SHOULD be o Flags: 8 bits. No flags are defined in this document. SHOULD be
set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o NSH Carried Object: the content of the TLV which consists of the o NSH Carried Object: the content of the TLV which consists of the
NSH data as defined in [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]. NSH data as defined in [RFC8300].
3.2. SRH and RFC8200 behavior 3.2. SRH and RFC8200 behavior
The SRH being a new type of the Routing Header, it also has the same The SRH being a new type of the Routing Header, it also has the same
properties: properties:
SHOULD only appear once in the packet. SHOULD only appear once in the packet.
Only the router whose address is in the DA field of the packet Only the router whose address is in the DA field of the packet
header MUST inspect the SRH. header MUST inspect the SRH.
skipping to change at page 16, line 22 skipping to change at page 16, line 22
The DA of the packet changes at each segment termination/completion The DA of the packet changes at each segment termination/completion
and therefore the final DA of the packet MUST be encoded as the last and therefore the final DA of the packet MUST be encoded as the last
segment of the path. segment of the path.
4. SRH Functions 4. SRH Functions
Segment Routing architecture, as defined in Segment Routing architecture, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] defines a segment as an instruction [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] defines a segment as an instruction
or, more generally, a set of instructions (function). or, more generally, a set of instructions (function).
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] defines the basic In this section we review two functions that may be associated to a
functions associated with SRv6 SID's. segment:
In this section we review two of these functions that may be
associated to a segment:
o End: the endpoint (End) function is the base of the source routing o End: the endpoint (End) function is the base of the source routing
paradigm. It consists of updating the DA with the next segment paradigm. It consists of updating the DA with the next segment
and forward the packet accordingly. and forward the packet accordingly.
o End.X: The endpoint layer-3 cross-connect function. o End.X: The endpoint layer-3 cross-connect function.
More functions are defined in More functions are defined in
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming].
skipping to change at page 28, line 32 skipping to change at page 28, line 32
Suggested Description Reference Suggested Description Reference
Value Value
----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
1 Ingress Node TLV This document 1 Ingress Node TLV This document
2 Egress Node TLV This document 2 Egress Node TLV This document
3 Opaque Container TLV This document 3 Opaque Container TLV This document
4 Padding TLV This document 4 Padding TLV This document
5 HMAC TLV This document 5 HMAC TLV This document
6 NSH Carrier TLV This document 6 NSH Carrier TLV This document
8. Manageability Considerations 8. Implementation Status
TBD This section is to be removed prior to publishing as an RFC.
8.1. Linux
Name: Linux Kernel v4.14
Status: Production
Implementation: adds SRH, performs END and END.X processing, supports
HMAC TLV
Details: https://irtf.org/anrw/2017/anrw17-final3.pdf and
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop]
8.2. Cisco Systems
Name: IOS XR and IOS XE
Status: Pre-production
Implementation: adds SRH, performs END and END.X processing, no TLV
processing
Details: [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop]
8.3. FD.io
Name: VPP/Segment Routing for IPv6
Status: Production
Implementation: adds SRH, performs END and END.X processing, no TLV
processing
Details: https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/Segment_Routing_for_IPv6 and
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop]
8.4. Barefoot
Name: Barefoot Networks Tofino NPU
Status: Prototype
Implementation: performs END and END.X processing, no TLV processing
Details: [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop]
8.5. Juniper
Name: Juniper Networks Trio and vTrio NPU's
Status: Prototype & Experimental
Implementation: SRH insertion mode, Process SID where SID is an
interface address, no TLV processing
9. Contributors 9. Contributors
Kamran Raza, Darren Dukes, Brian Field, Daniel Bernier, Ida Leung, Kamran Raza, Darren Dukes, Brian Field, Daniel Bernier, Ida Leung,
Jen Linkova, Ebben Aries, Tomoya Kosugi, Eric Vyncke, David Lebrun, Jen Linkova, Ebben Aries, Tomoya Kosugi, Eric Vyncke, David Lebrun,
Dirk Steinberg, Robert Raszuk, Dave Barach, John Brzozowski, Pierre Dirk Steinberg, Robert Raszuk, Dave Barach, John Brzozowski, Pierre
Francois, Nagendra Kumar, Mark Townsley, Christian Martin, Roberta Francois, Nagendra Kumar, Mark Townsley, Christian Martin, Roberta
Maglione, James Connolly, Aloys Augustin contributed to the content Maglione, James Connolly, Aloys Augustin contributed to the content
of this document. of this document.
skipping to change at page 29, line 33 skipping to change at page 30, line 39
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC6407] Weis, B., Rowles, S., and T. Hardjono, "The Group Domain [RFC6407] Weis, B., Rowles, S., and T. Hardjono, "The Group Domain
of Interpretation", RFC 6407, DOI 10.17487/RFC6407, of Interpretation", RFC 6407, DOI 10.17487/RFC6407,
October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6407>. October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6407>.
[RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement
and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions] [I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions]
Ginsberg, L., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., and B. Decraene, Ginsberg, L., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B.,
"IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6 Dataplane", and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6
draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-01 (work in progress), Dataplane", draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-02 (work
September 2017. in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn] [I-D.dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn]
(Unknown), (., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., (Unknown), (., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Dukes, D.,
Brissette, P., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Brissette, P., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d.,
Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., and S. Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., and S.
Matsushima, "BGP Signaling of IPv6-Segment-Routing-based Matsushima, "BGP Signaling of IPv6-Segment-Routing-based
VPN Networks", draft-dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn-00 (work in VPN Networks", draft-dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn-00 (work in
progress), March 2017. progress), March 2017.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop]
Filsfils, C., Clad, F., Camarillo, P., Abdelsalam, A.,
Salsano, S., Bonaventure, O., Horn, J., and J. Liste,
"SRv6 interoperability report", draft-filsfils-spring-
srv6-interop-00 (work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Li, Z., Leddy, J., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Filsfils, C., Li, Z., Leddy, J., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R.,
Matsushima, S., Lebrun, D., Decraene, B., Peirens, B., Matsushima, S., Lebrun, D., Decraene, B., Peirens, B.,
Salsano, S., Naik, G., Elmalky, H., Jonnalagadda, P., and Salsano, S., Naik, G., Elmalky, H., Jonnalagadda, P., and
M. Sharif, "SRv6 Network Programming", draft-filsfils- M. Sharif, "SRv6 Network Programming", draft-filsfils-
spring-srv6-network-programming-04 (work in progress), spring-srv6-network-programming-04 (work in progress),
March 2018. March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-isis-l2bundles] [I-D.ietf-isis-l2bundles]
skipping to change at page 30, line 43 skipping to change at page 32, line 19
segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), December segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), December
2017. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
segment-routing-extensions-11 (work in progress), January segment-routing-extensions-11 (work in progress), January
2018. 2018.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
Quinn, P., Elzur, U., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service
Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-28 (work in progress),
November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases]
Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Maglione, R., and Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Maglione, R., and
M. Townsley, "IPv6 SPRING Use Cases", draft-ietf-spring- M. Townsley, "IPv6 SPRING Use Cases", draft-ietf-spring-
ipv6-use-cases-12 (work in progress), December 2017. ipv6-use-cases-12 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir, Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,
"Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks", draft-ietf- "Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks", draft-ietf-
spring-resiliency-use-cases-12 (work in progress), spring-resiliency-use-cases-12 (work in progress),
December 2017. December 2017.
skipping to change at page 32, line 11 skipping to change at page 33, line 26
Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942, Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4942, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4942, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4942>.
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
[RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement
and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi Stefano Previdi
Individual Individual
Italy Italy
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 98 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/