-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
draft-papadopoulos-roll-dis-mods-use-cases.html
621 lines (568 loc) · 24.5 KB
/
draft-papadopoulos-roll-dis-mods-use-cases.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head profile="http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" />
<title>Use cases for DIS Modifications</title>
<style type="text/css" title="Xml2Rfc (sans serif)">
/*<![CDATA[*/
a {
text-decoration: none;
}
/* info code from SantaKlauss at http://www.madaboutstyle.com/tooltip2.html */
a.info {
/* This is the key. */
position: relative;
z-index: 24;
text-decoration: none;
}
a.info:hover {
z-index: 25;
color: #FFF; background-color: #900;
}
a.info span { display: none; }
a.info:hover span.info {
/* The span will display just on :hover state. */
display: block;
position: absolute;
font-size: smaller;
top: 2em; left: -5em; width: 15em;
padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #333;
color: #900; background-color: #EEE;
text-align: left;
}
a.smpl {
color: black;
}
a:hover {
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:active {
text-decoration: underline;
}
address {
margin-top: 1em;
margin-left: 2em;
font-style: normal;
}
body {
color: black;
font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 10pt;
max-width: 55em;
}
cite {
font-style: normal;
}
dd {
margin-right: 2em;
}
dl {
margin-left: 2em;
}
ul.empty {
list-style-type: none;
}
ul.empty li {
margin-top: .5em;
}
dl p {
margin-left: 0em;
}
dt {
margin-top: .5em;
}
h1 {
font-size: 14pt;
line-height: 21pt;
page-break-after: avoid;
}
h1.np {
page-break-before: always;
}
h1 a {
color: #333333;
}
h2 {
font-size: 12pt;
line-height: 15pt;
page-break-after: avoid;
}
h3, h4, h5, h6 {
font-size: 10pt;
page-break-after: avoid;
}
h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
color: black;
}
img {
margin-left: 3em;
}
li {
margin-left: 2em;
margin-right: 2em;
}
ol {
margin-left: 2em;
margin-right: 2em;
}
ol p {
margin-left: 0em;
}
p {
margin-left: 2em;
margin-right: 2em;
}
pre {
margin-left: 3em;
background-color: lightyellow;
padding: .25em;
}
pre.text2 {
border-style: dotted;
border-width: 1px;
background-color: #f0f0f0;
width: 69em;
}
pre.inline {
background-color: white;
padding: 0em;
}
pre.text {
border-style: dotted;
border-width: 1px;
background-color: #f8f8f8;
width: 69em;
}
pre.drawing {
border-style: solid;
border-width: 1px;
background-color: #f8f8f8;
padding: 2em;
}
table {
margin-left: 2em;
}
table.tt {
vertical-align: top;
}
table.full {
border-style: outset;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.headers {
border-style: outset;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.tt td {
vertical-align: top;
}
table.full td {
border-style: inset;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.tt th {
vertical-align: top;
}
table.full th {
border-style: inset;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.headers th {
border-style: none none inset none;
border-width: 1px;
}
table.left {
margin-right: auto;
}
table.right {
margin-left: auto;
}
table.center {
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
caption {
caption-side: bottom;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 9pt;
margin-top: .5em;
}
table.header {
border-spacing: 1px;
width: 95%;
font-size: 10pt;
color: white;
}
td.top {
vertical-align: top;
}
td.topnowrap {
vertical-align: top;
white-space: nowrap;
}
table.header td {
background-color: gray;
width: 50%;
}
table.header a {
color: white;
}
td.reference {
vertical-align: top;
white-space: nowrap;
padding-right: 1em;
}
thead {
display:table-header-group;
}
ul.toc, ul.toc ul {
list-style: none;
margin-left: 1.5em;
margin-right: 0em;
padding-left: 0em;
}
ul.toc li {
line-height: 150%;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 10pt;
margin-left: 0em;
margin-right: 0em;
}
ul.toc li li {
line-height: normal;
font-weight: normal;
font-size: 9pt;
margin-left: 0em;
margin-right: 0em;
}
li.excluded {
font-size: 0pt;
}
ul p {
margin-left: 0em;
}
.comment {
background-color: yellow;
}
.center {
text-align: center;
}
.error {
color: red;
font-style: italic;
font-weight: bold;
}
.figure {
font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;
font-size: 9pt;
}
.filename {
color: #333333;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 12pt;
line-height: 21pt;
text-align: center;
}
.fn {
font-weight: bold;
}
.hidden {
display: none;
}
.left {
text-align: left;
}
.right {
text-align: right;
}
.title {
color: #990000;
font-size: 18pt;
line-height: 18pt;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;
margin-top: 36pt;
}
.vcardline {
display: block;
}
.warning {
font-size: 14pt;
background-color: yellow;
}
@media print {
.noprint {
display: none;
}
a {
color: black;
text-decoration: none;
}
table.header {
width: 90%;
}
td.header {
width: 50%;
color: black;
background-color: white;
vertical-align: top;
font-size: 12pt;
}
ul.toc a::after {
content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page);
}
ul.ind li li a {
content: target-counter(attr(href), page);
}
.print2col {
column-count: 2;
-moz-column-count: 2;
column-fill: auto;
}
}
@page {
@top-left {
content: "Internet-Draft";
}
@top-right {
content: "December 2010";
}
@top-center {
content: "Abbreviated Title";
}
@bottom-left {
content: "Doe";
}
@bottom-center {
content: "Expires June 2011";
}
@bottom-right {
content: "[Page " counter(page) "]";
}
}
@page:first {
@top-left {
content: normal;
}
@top-right {
content: normal;
}
@top-center {
content: normal;
}
}
/*]]>*/
</style>
<link href="#rfc.toc" rel="Contents">
<link href="#rfc.section.1" rel="Chapter" title="1 Introduction">
<link href="#rfc.section.2" rel="Chapter" title="2 Terminology">
<link href="#rfc.section.3" rel="Chapter" title="3 Applications">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.1" rel="Chapter" title="3.1 A Leaf Node Joining a DAG">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.2" rel="Chapter" title="3.2 Identifying A Defunct DAG">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.3" rel="Chapter" title="3.3 Adjacencies probing with RPL">
<link href="#rfc.section.3.3.1" rel="Chapter" title="3.3.1 Deliberations">
<link href="#rfc.references" rel="Chapter" title="4 Informative References">
<link href="#rfc.authors" rel="Chapter">
<meta name="generator" content="xml2rfc version 2.32.0 - https://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc" />
<link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" />
<meta name="dct.creator" content="Papadopoulos, G." />
<meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-papadopoulos-roll-dis-mods-use-cases-00" />
<meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2020-09" />
<meta name="dct.abstract" content="This document presents some of the use-cases which call for DIS flags and options modifications. " />
<meta name="description" content="This document presents some of the use-cases which call for DIS flags and options modifications. " />
</head>
<body>
<table class="header">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="left">ROLL</td>
<td class="right">G. Papadopoulos</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left">Internet-Draft</td>
<td class="right">IMT Atlantique</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left">Intended status: Standards Track</td>
<td class="right">March 9, 2020</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="left">Expires: September 10, 2020</td>
<td class="right"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="title">Use cases for DIS Modifications<br />
<span class="filename">draft-papadopoulos-roll-dis-mods-use-cases-00</span></p>
<h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
<p>This document presents some of the use-cases which call for DIS flags and options modifications. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.status"><a href="#rfc.status">Status of This Memo</a></h1>
<p>This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.</p>
<p>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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2020.</p>
<h1 id="rfc.copyrightnotice"><a href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
<p>Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
<p>This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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.</p>
<hr class="noprint" />
<h1 class="np" id="rfc.toc"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1>
<ul class="toc">
<li>1. <a href="#rfc.section.1">Introduction</a>
</li>
<li>2. <a href="#rfc.section.2">Terminology</a>
</li>
<li>3. <a href="#rfc.section.3">Applications</a>
</li>
<ul><li>3.1. <a href="#rfc.section.3.1">A Leaf Node Joining a DAG</a>
</li>
<li>3.2. <a href="#rfc.section.3.2">Identifying A Defunct DAG</a>
</li>
<li>3.3. <a href="#rfc.section.3.3">Adjacencies probing with RPL</a>
</li>
<ul><li>3.3.1. <a href="#rfc.section.3.3.1">Deliberations</a>
</li>
</ul></ul><li>4. <a href="#rfc.references">Informative References</a>
</li>
<li><a href="#rfc.authors">Author's Address</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h1 id="rfc.section.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a> Introduction</h1>
<h1 id="rfc.section.2">
<a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a> Terminology</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" class="xref">[RFC2119]</a>. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3">
<a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a> Applications</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.p.1">This section details some use cases that require DIS modifications compared to the behaviour currently defined in <a href="#RFC6550" class="xref">[RFC6550]</a>. The first use case is thatof a new leaf node joining an established DAG in an energy efficient manner. The second use case describes why node might want to use DIS to identify defunct DAGs for which it still maintains state. The third use case describes the need for adjacency probing and how DIS can used for that. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1.</a> A Leaf Node Joining a DAG</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">This use case is typically of a smart meter being replaced in the field, while a RPL network is operating and stable. The new smart meter must join the network quickly, without draining the energy of the surrounding nodes, be they battery-operated RPL routers or leaf nodes. In this use case, the issues with the current RPL specification are </p>
<ul>
<li>Just waiting for a gratuitous DIO may take a long time if the Trickle timers have relaxed to the steady state. A technician who has just installed the new meter needs to positively assess that the meter has joined the network before it leaves the premise. It is not economically viable to ask the technician to standby the meter until a gratuitous DIO has arrived, which may take hours. </li>
<li>If the meter sends a DIS, it needs to do so using multicast, because it has no knowledge of its surroundings. Sending a multicast DIS is considered an inconsistency by the nearby RPL routers. They will reset their Trickle timer to the shortest period. This will trigger sending a stream of DIOs until the Trickle timers relax again. The DIOs will be sent in multicast, which will trigger energy expenditure at nearby nodes, which had no need for the DIOs. </li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">A proposed solution could be the following. A new leaf node that joins an established LLN runs an iterative algorithm in which it requests (using multicast DIS) DIOs from routers belonging to the desired DAG. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.3">The DIS message has the "No Inconsistency" flag set to prevent resetting of Trickle timer in responding routers, thereby keeping the aggregated number of transmissions low. It also has the "DIO Type" flag set to make responding routers send unicast DIOs back, thereby not triggering full reception in nearby nodes that have state-of-the- art radio receivers with hardware-based address filtering. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4">The DIS message can include a Response Spreading option prescribing a suitable spreading interval based on the expected density of nearby routers and on the expected Layer 2 technology. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.5">The DIS will likely include a Metric Container listing the routing constraints that the responding routers must satisfy in order to be allowed to respond <a href="#RFC6551" class="xref">[RFC6551]</a>. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.6">At each iteration, the node multicasts such a DIS and waits for forthcoming DIOs. After a time equal to the spreading interval, the node considers the current iteration to be unsuccessful. The node consequently relaxes the routing constraints somewhat and proceeds to the next iteration. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.7">The cycle repeats until the node receives one or more DIOs or until it has relaxed the constraints to the lowest acceptable values. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.8">This algorithm has been proven in the field to be extremely energy-efficient, especially when routers have a wide communication range. </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.2">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2.</a> Identifying A Defunct DAG</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">A RPL node may remove a neighbor from its parent set for a DAG for a number of reasons: </p>
<ul>
<li>The neighbor is no longer reachable, as determined using a mechanism such as Neighbor Unreachanility Detection (NUD) <a href="#RFC4861" class="xref">[RFC4861]</a>, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) <a href="#RFC5881" class="xref">[RFC5881]</a> or L2 triggers <a href="#RFC5184" class="xref">[RFC5184]</a>; or </li>
<li>The neighbor advertises an infinite rank in the DAG; or </li>
<li>Keeping the neighbor as a parent would required the node to increase its rank beyond L + DAGMaxRankIncrease, where L is the minimum rank the node has had in this DAG; or </li>
<li>The neighbor advertises membership in a different DAG within the same RPL Instance, where a different DAG is recognised by a different DODAGID or a different DODAGVersionNumber. </li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.2">Even if the conditions listed above exist, a RPL node may fail to remove a neighbor from its parent set because: </p>
<ul>
<li>The node may fail to receive the neighbor's DIOs advertising an increased rank or the neighbor's membership in a different DAG; </li>
<li>The node may not check, and hence may not detect, the neighbor's unreachability for a long time. For example, the node may not have any data to send to this neighbor and hence may not encounter any event (such as failure to send data to this neighbor) that would trigger a check for the neighbor's reachability. </li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.3">In such cases, a node would continue to consider itself attached to a DAG even if all its parents in the DAG are unreachable or have moved to different DAGs. Such a DAG can be characterized as being defunct from the node's perspective. If the node maintains state about a large number of defunct DAGs, such state may prevent a considerable portion of the total memory in the node from being available for more useful purposes. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.4">To alleviate the problem described above, a RPL node may invoke the following procedure to identify a defunct DAG and delete the state it maintains for this DAG. Note that, given the proactive nature of RPL protocol, the lack of data traffic using a DAG can not be considered a reliable indication of the DAG's defunction. Further, the Trickle timer based control of DIO transmissions means the possibility of an indefinite delay in the receipt of a new DIO from a functional DAG parent. Hence, the mechanism described here is based on the use of a DIS message to solicit DIOs about a DAG suspected of defunction. Further, a multicast DIS is used so as to avoid the need to query each parent individually and also to discover other neighbor routers that may serve as the node's new parents in the DAG. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.5">When a RPL node has not received a DIO from any of its parents in a DAG for more than a locally configured time duration: </p>
<p></p>
<ul><li>The node generates a multicast DIS message with: <ul>
<li>the "No Inconsistency" flag set so that the responding routers do not reset their Trickle timers. </li>
<li>the "DIO Type" flag not set so that the responding routers send multicast DIOs and other nodes in the vicinity do not need to invoke this procedure. </li>
<li>a Solicited Information option to identify the DAG in question. This option must have the I and D flags set and the RPLInstanceID/DODAGID fields must be set to values identifying the DAG. The V flag inside the Solicited Information option should not be set so as to allow the neighbors to send DIOs advertising the latest version of the DAG. </li>
<li>a Response Spreading option specifying a suitable time interval over which the DIO responses may arrive. </li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<ul><li>After sending the DIS, the node waits for the duration specified inside the Response Spreading option to receive the DIOs generated by its neighbors. At the conclusion of the wait duration: <ul>
<li>If the node has received one or more DIOs advertising newer version(s) of the DAG, it joins the latest version of the DAG, selects a new parent set among the neighbors advertising the latest DAG version and marks the DAG status as functional. </li>
<li>Otherwise, if the node has not received a DIO advertising the current version of the DAG from a neighbor in the parent set, it removes that neighbor from the parent set. As a result, if the node has no parent left in the DAG, it marks the DAG as defunct and schedule the deletion of the state it has maintained for the DAG after a locally configured "hold" duration. (This is because, as per RPL specification, when a node no longer has any parents left in a DAG, it is still required to remember the DAG's identity (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID, DODAGVersionNumber), the lowest rank (L) it has had in this DAG and the DAGMaxRankIncrease value for the DAG for a certain time interval to ensure that the node does not join an earlier version of the DAG and does not rejoin the current version of the DAG at a rank higher than L + DAGMaxRankIncrease.) </li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.3">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.3">3.3.</a> Adjacencies probing with RPL</h1>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.1">RPL avoids periodic hello messaging as compared to other distance vector protocols. It uses trickle timer based mechanism to update configuration parameters. This significantly reduces the RPL control overhead. One of the fallout of this design choice is that, in the absence of regular traffic, the adjacencies could not be tested and repaired if broken. </p>
<p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.2">RPL provides a mechanism in the form of unicast DIS to query a particular node for its DIO. A node receiving a unicast DIS MUST respond with a unicast DIO with Configuration Option. This mechanism could as well be made use of for probing adjacencies and certain implementations such as Contiki uses this. The periodicity of the probing is implementation dependent, but the node is expected to invoke probing only when </p>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>There is no data traffic based on which the links could be tested. </li>
<li>There is no L2 feedback. In some case, L2 might provide periodic beacons at link layer and the absence of beacons could be used for link tests. </li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<h1 id="rfc.section.3.3.1">
<a href="#rfc.section.3.3.1">3.3.1.</a> Deliberations</h1>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>Should the probing scheme be standardized? In some cases using multicast based probing may prove advantageous. </li>
<li>In some cases using multicast based probing may prove advantageous. Currently RPL does not have multicast based probing. Multicast DIS/DIO may not be suitable for probing because it could possibly lead to change of states. </li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<h1 id="rfc.references">
<a href="#rfc.references">4.</a> Informative References</h1>
<table><tbody>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Bradner, S.</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC4861">[RFC4861]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Narten, T.</a>, <a>Nordmark, E.</a>, <a>Simpson, W.</a> and <a>H. Soliman</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861">Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)</a>", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC5184">[RFC5184]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Teraoka, F.</a>, <a>Gogo, K.</a>, <a>Mitsuya, K.</a>, <a>Shibui, R.</a> and <a>K. Mitani</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5184">Unified Layer 2 (L2) Abstractions for Layer 3 (L3)-Driven Fast Handover</a>", RFC 5184, DOI 10.17487/RFC5184, May 2008.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC5881">[RFC5881]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Katz, D.</a> and <a>D. Ward</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5881">Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)</a>", RFC 5881, DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC6550">[RFC6550]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Winter, T.</a>, <a>Thubert, P.</a>, <a>Brandt, A.</a>, <a>Hui, J.</a>, <a>Kelsey, R.</a>, <a>Levis, P.</a>, <a>Pister, K.</a>, <a>Struik, R.</a>, <a>Vasseur, JP.</a> and <a>R. Alexander</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6550">RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks</a>", RFC 6550, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="reference"><b id="RFC6551">[RFC6551]</b></td>
<td class="top">
<a>Vasseur, JP.</a>, <a>Kim, M.</a>, <a>Pister, K.</a>, <a>Dejean, N.</a> and <a>D. Barthel</a>, "<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6551">Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in Low-Power and Lossy Networks</a>", RFC 6551, DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Author's Address</a></h1>
<div class="avoidbreak">
<address class="vcard">
<span class="vcardline">
<span class="fn">Georgios Z. Papadopoulos</span>
<span class="n hidden">
<span class="family-name">Papadopoulos</span>
</span>
</span>
<span class="org vcardline">IMT Atlantique</span>
<span class="adr">
<span class="vcardline">Office B00 - 102A</span>
<span class="vcardline">2 Rue de la Châtaigneraie</span>
<span class="vcardline">
<span class="locality">Cesson-Sévigné - Rennes</span>,
<span class="region"></span>
<span class="code">35510</span>
</span>
<span class="country-name vcardline">FRANCE</span>
</span>
<span class="vcardline">Phone: +33 299 12 70 04</span>
<span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></span>
</address>
</div>
</body>
</html>