When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-richardson-roll-useofrplinfo-2460bis-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ines Robles , Michael Richardson , Pascal Thubert | ||
| Last updated | 2017-01-19 (Latest revision 2016-07-18) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
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 RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which to design efficient compression of these headers.
Authors
Ines Robles
Michael Richardson
Pascal Thubert
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)