%% You should probably cite rfc9008 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41, number = {draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-41}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo/41/}, author = {Ines Robles and Michael Richardson and Pascal Thubert}, title = {{Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane}}, pagetotal = 63, year = 2020, month = sep, day = 21, abstract = {This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases where RFC6553 (RPI Option Type), RFC6554 (Routing Header for Source Routes) and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required in data plane. This analysis provides the basis on which to design efficient compression of these headers. This document updates RFC6553 adding a change to the RPI Option Type. Additionally, this document updates RFC6550 defining a flag in the DIO Configuration option to indicate about this change and updates {[}RFC8138{]} as well to consider the new Option Type when the RPL Option is decompressed.}, }