ROLL R. Koutsiamanis, Ed.
Internet-Draft G. Papadopoulos
Intended status: Standards Track N. Montavont
Expires: May 19, 2019 IMT Atlantique
P. Thubert
Cisco
November 15, 2018
RPL DAG Metric Container Node State and Attribute object type extension
draft-koutsiamanis-roll-nsa-extension-04
Abstract
Implementing 6TiSCH Packet Replication and Elimination from / to the
RPL root requires the ability to forward copies of packets over
different paths via different RPL parents. Selecting the appropriate
parents to achieve ultra-low latency and jitter requires information
about a node's parents. This document details what information needs
to be transmitted and how it is encoded within a packet to enable
this functionality.
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 https://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 May 19, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
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. Alternative Parent Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Common Ancestor Strict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Common Ancestor Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension . . . . 6
4.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. DAG Metric Container fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Node State and Attribute fields . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Controlling PRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Other Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
Industrial network applications have stringent requirements on
reliability and predictability, and typically leverage 1+1
redundancy, aka Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE)
[I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] to achieve their goal. In order
for wireless networks to be able to be used in such applications, the
principles of Deterministic Networking [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
lead to designs that aim at maximizing packet delivery rate and
minimizing latency and jitter. Additionally, given that the network
nodes often do not have an unlimited power supply, energy consumption
needs to be minimized as well.
To meet this goal, IEEE Std. 802.15.4 [IEEE802154-2015] provides
Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH), a mode of operation which uses a
fixed communication schedule to allow deterministic medium access as
well as channel hopping to work around radio interference. However,
since TSCH uses retransmissions in the event of a failed
transmission, end-to-end delay and jitter performance can
deteriorate.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
The 6TiSCH working group, focusing on IPv6 over IEEE Std.
802.15.4-TSCH, has worked on the issues previously highlighted and
produced the "6TiSCH Architecture" [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] to
address that case. Building on this architecture, "Exploiting Packet
Replication and Elimination in Complex Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs"
[I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] leverages PRE to improve the
Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), provide a hard bound to the end-to-end
latency, and limit jitter.
PRE achieves a controlled redundancy by laying multiple forwarding
paths through the network and using them in parallel for different
copies of a same packet. PRE can follow the Destination-Oriented
Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) formed by RPL from a node to the root.
Building a multi-path DODAG can be achieved based on the RPL
capability of having multiple parents for each node in a network, a
subset of which is used to forward packets. In order for this subset
to be defined, a RPL parent subset selection mechanism, which falls
within the remit of the RPL Objective Function (OF), needs to have
specific path information. The specification of the transmission of
this information is the focus of this document.
More concretely, this specification focuses on the extensions to the
DAG Metric Container [RFC6551] required for providing the PRE
mechanism a part of the information it needs to operate. This
information is the RPL [RFC6550] parent address set of a node and it
must be sent to potential children nodes of the node. The RPL DIO
Control Message is the canonical way of broadcasting this kind of
information and therefore its DAG Metric Container [RFC6551] field is
used to append a Node State and Attribute (NSA) object. The node's
parent address set is stored as an optional TLV within the NSA
object. This specification defines the type value and structure for
this TLV.
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
The draft uses the following Terminology:
Track A sequence of 6TiSCH schedule resources to support a single-
path multi-hop transmission of a packet. See "6TiSCH
Architecture" [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] for more.
Complex Track A Track which supports a multi-path multi-hop
transmission of a packet. See "6TiSCH Architecture"
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] for more.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE) The sending of multiple
copies of a packet using multi-path forwarding over a multi-hop
network and the consolidation of multiple received packet copies
to control flooding. See "Exploiting Packet Replication and
Elimination in Complex Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs"
[I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] for more.
Alternative Parent (AP) Selection The problem of how to select the
next hop target node for a packet copy to be forwarded to when
performing packet replication.
3. Alternative Parent Selection
In the RPL protocol, each node maintains a list of potential parents.
For PRE, the PP node is defined to be the same as the RPL DODAG
Preferred Parent (PP) node. Furthermore, to construct an alternative
path toward the root, in addition to the PP node, each 6TiSCH node in
the network registers an AP node as well from its Parent Set (PS).
There are multiple alternative methods of selecting the AP node,
functionality which is included in operation of the RPL Objective
Function (OF). A scheme which allows the two paths to remain
correlated is detailed here. More specifically, in this scheme a
6TiSCH node will select an alternative parent node close to its PP
node to allow the operation of overhearing between parents. If
multiple potential APs match this condition, the AP with the lowest
rank will be registered.
There are at least three methods of performing the alternative parent
selection based on common ancestors (CA), named Common Ancestor
Strict, Common Ancestor Medium, and Common Ancestor Relaxed,
depending on how restrictive the selection process is. A more
restrictive method will limit flooding but might fail to select an
appropriate alternative parent, while a less restrictive one will
more often find an appropriate alterantive parent but might increase
flooding.
3.1. Common Ancestor Strict
In CA Strict, the node will check if its Preferred Grand Parent
(PGP), the PP of its PP, is the same as the PP of the potential AP.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
( R ) root
. PS(S) = {A, B, C, D}
. PP(S) = C
. PP(PP(S)) = Y
.
PS(A) = {W, X}
( W ) ( X ) ( Y ) ( Z ) PP(A) = X
^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^^^ ^ ^ ^^
| \ // | \ // || \ / || PS(B) = {W, X, Y}
| // | // || / || PP(B) = Y
| // \ | // \ || / \ ||
| // \ | // \ || / \ || PS(C) = {X, Y, Z}
( A ) ( B ) ( C ) ( D ) PP(C) = Y
^ ^ ^^ ^
\ \ || / PS(D) = {Y, Z}
\ \ || / PP(D) = Z
\ \ || /
\----\\ || / || Preferred Parent
( S ) source | Potential Alternative Parent
Figure 1: Example Common Ancestor Strict Alternative Parent Selection
method
For example, in Figure 1, the source 6TiSCH node S must know its
grandparent sets both through nodes A, B, C, and D. The Parent Sets
(PS) and the Preferred Parents (PS) of nodes A, B, C, and D are shown
on the side of the figure. The CA Strict parent selection method
will select an AP for node S for which PP(PP(S)) = PP(AP).
Therefore, node S can decide to use node B as its AP node, since
PP(PP(S)) = Y = PP(B).
3.2. Common Ancestor Medium
In CA Medium, the node will check if its Preferred Grand Parent
(PGP), the PP of its PP, is contained in the PS of the potential AP.
Using the same example, in Figure 1, the CA Medium parent selection
method will select an AP for node S for which PP(PP(S)) in PS(AP).
Therefore, node S can decide to use node B or D as its AP node, since
given that PP(PP(S)) = Y, for node B PS(B) = {W, X, Y} and for node D
PD(D) = {Y, Z}.
3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed
In CA Relaxed, the node will check if its the Parent Set (PS) of its
Preferred Parent (PP), has a common node with the PS of the potential
AP.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
Using the same example, in Figure 1, the CA Relaxed parent selection
method will select an AP for node S for which PS(PP(S)) has a non-
empty intersection with PS(AP). Therefore, node S can decide to use
node A, B or D as its AP node. Given that PS(PP(S)) = {X, Y, Z} the
alternative parent selection process evaluates the nodes:
o Node A: PS(A) = {W, X} and the common nodes are {X}
o Node B: PS(B) = {W, X, Y} and the common nodes are {X, Y}
o Node D: PS(D) = {Y, Z} and the common nodes are {Y, Z}
4. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension
In order to select their AP node, 6TiSCH nodes need to be aware of
their grandparent node sets. Within RPL [RFC6550], the nodes use the
DODAG Information Object (DIO) Control Message to broadcast
information about themselves to potential children. However, RPL
[RFC6550], does not define how to propagate parent set related
information, which is what this document addresses.
DIO messages can carry multiple options, out of which the DAG Metric
Container option [RFC6551] is the most suitable structurally and
semantically for the purpose of carrying the parent set. The DAG
Metric Container option itself can carry different nested objects,
out of which the Node State and Attribute (NSA) [RFC6551] is
appropriate for transferring generic node state data. Within the
Node State and Attribute it is possible to store optional TLVs
representing various node characteristics. As per the Node State and
Attribute (NSA) [RFC6551] description, no TLV has been defined for
use. This document defines one TLV for the purpose of transmitting a
node's parent set.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |Version Number | Rank |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|G|0| MOP | Prf | DTSN | Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DAGMC Type (2)| DAGMC Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
// DAG Metric Container data //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Example DIO Message with a DAG Metric Container option
Figure 2 shows the structure of the DIO Control Message when a DAG
Metric Container option is included. The DAG Metric Container option
type (DAGMC Type in Figure 2) has the value 0x02 as per the IANA
registry for the RPL Control Message Options, and is defined in
[RFC6550]. The DAG Metric Container option length (DAGMC Length in
Figure 2) expresses the DAG Metric Container length in bytes. DAG
Metric Container data holds the actual data and is shown expanded in
Figure 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Routing-MC-Type|Res Flags|P|C|O|R| A | Prec | Length (bytes)| |=>MC
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Res | Flags |A|O| PS type | PS Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |=>NSA
| PS IPv6 address(es) ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: DAG Metric Container (MC) data with Node State and
Attribute (NSA) object body and a TLV
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
The structure of the DAG Metric Container data in the form of a Node
State and Attribute (NSA) object with a TLV in the NSA Optional TLVs
field is shown in Figure 3. The first 32 bits comprise the DAG
Metric Container header and all the following bits are part of the
Node State and Attribute object body, as defined in [RFC6551]. This
document defines a new TLV, which CAN be carried in the Node State
and Attribute (NSA) object Optional TLVs field. The TLV is named
Parent Set and is abbreviated as PS in Figure 3.
PS type: The type of the Parent Set TLV. The value is TBD1.
PS Length: The total length of the TLV value field (PS IPv6
address(es)) in bytes.
PS IPv6 address(es): A sequence of zero or more IPv6 addresses
belonging to a node's parent set. Each address requires 16
bytes. The order of the parents in the parent set is in
decreasing preference based on the Objective Function [RFC6550]
used by the node.
4.1. Usage
The PS SHOULD be used in the process of parent selection, and
especially in alternative parent selection, since it can help the
alternative path from significantly deviating from the preferred
path. The Parent Set is information local to the node that
broadcasts it.
4.1.1. DAG Metric Container fields
Given the intended usage, when using the PS, the NSA object it is
contained in MUST be used as a constraint in the DAG Metric
Container. More specifically, using the PS places the following
requirements on the DAG Metric Container header fields:
o 'P' flag: MUST be cleared, since PS is used only with constraints.
o 'C' flag: MUST be set, since PS is used only with constraints.
o 'O' flag: Used as per [RFC6550], to indicated optionality.
o 'R' flag: MUST be cleared, since PS is used only with constraints.
o 'A' Field: MUST be set to 0 and ignored, since PS is used only
with constraints.
o 'Prec' Field: Used as per [RFC6550].
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
4.1.2. Node State and Attribute fields
For clarity reasons, the usage of the PS places no additional
restrictions on the NSA flags ('A' and 'O'), which can be used as
normally defined in [RFC6550].
4.2. Compression
The PS IPv6 address(es) field in the Parent Set TLV add overhead due
to their size. Therefore, compression is highly desirable in order
for this extension to be usable. To meet this goal, a good
compression method candidate is [RFC8138] 6LoWPAN Routing Header
(6LoRH). Furthermore, the PS IPv6 address(es) belong by definition
to nodes in the same RPL DODAG and are stored in the form of a list
of addresses. This makes this field a good candidate for the use of
the same compression as in Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH),
achieving efficiency and implementation reuse. Therefore, the PS
IPv6 address(es) field SHOULD be compressed using the compression
method for Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) [RFC8138].
5. Controlling PRE
PRE is very helpful when the aim is to increase reliability for a
certain track, however it's use creates additional traffic as part of
the replication process. It is conceivable that not all tracks have
stringent reliability requirements. Therefore, a way to control
whether PRE is applied to a track's packets SHOULD be implemented.
For example, a traffic class label can be used to determine this
behaviour per flow type as described in Deterministic Networking
Architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture].
6. Security Considerations
The structure of the DIO control message is extended, within the pre-
defined DIO options. Therefore, the security mechanisms defined in
RPL [RFC6550] apply to this proposed extension.
7. IANA Considerations
This proposal requests the allocation of a new value TBD1 for the
"Parent Set" TLV in the Routing Metric/Constraint TLVs sub-registry
from IANA.
8. References
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
8.1. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-17 (work
in progress), November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-09 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs]
Papadopoulos, G., Montavont, N., and P. Thubert,
"Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex
Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs", draft-papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-
reqs-02 (work in progress), July 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>.
[RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.
8.2. Other Informative References
[IEEE802154-2015]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Std
802.15.4-2015 Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (WPANs)", December 2015.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
8.3. URIs
[1] https://github.com/ariskou/contiki/tree/draft-koutsiamanis-roll-
nsa-extension
[2] https://code.wireshark.org/review/gitweb?p=wireshark.git;a=commit
;h=e2f6ba229f45d8ccae2a6405e0ef41f1e61da138
Appendix A. Implementation Status
A research-stage implementation of the PRE mechanism using the
proposed extension as part of a 6TiSCH IOT use case was developed at
IMT Atlantique, France by Tomas Lagos Jenschke and Remous-Aris
Koutsiamanis. It was implemented on the open-source Contiki OS and
tested with the Cooja simulator. The DIO DAGMC NSA extension is
implemented with a configurable number of parents from the parent set
of a node to be reported.
( R )
(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)
(31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36)
(41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46)
(51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56)
( S )
Figure 4: Simulation Topology
The simulation setup is:
Topology: 32 nodes structured in regular grid as show in Figure 4.
Node S (source) is the only data packet sender, and send data to
node R (root). The parent set of each node (except R) is all the
nodes in the immediatelly higher row, the immediatelly above 6
nodes. For example, each node in {51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56} is
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
connected to all of {41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46}. Node 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16 have a single upwards link to R.
MAC: TSCH with 1 retransmission
Platform: Cooja
Schedule: Static, 2 timeslots per link from each node to each parent
in its parent set, 1 broadcast EB slot, 1 sender-based shared
timeslot (for DIO and DIS) per node (total of 32).
Simulation lifecycle: Allow link formation for 100 seconds before
starting to send data packets. Afterwards, S sends data packets
to R. The simulation terminates when 1000 packets have been sent
by S.
Radio Links: Links are reset uniformly randomly between 70% and 100%
every 60 seconds.
Traffic Pattern: CBR, S sends one non-fragmented UDP packet every 5
seconds to R.
PS extension size: 3 parents.
Routing Methods:
* RPL: The default RPL non-PRE implementation in Contiki OS.
* 2nd ETX: PRE with a parent selection method which picks as AP
the 2nd best parent in the parent set based on ETX.
* CA Strict: As described in Section 3.1.
* CA Medium: As described in Section 3.2.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
Simulation results:
+----------+---------------+------------------+---------------------+
| Routing | Average | Average | Average |
| Method | Packet | Traversed | Duplications/packet |
| | Delivery Rate | Nodes/packet (#) | (#) |
| | (%) | | |
+----------+---------------+------------------+---------------------+
| RPL | 82.70 | 5.56 | 7.02 |
| 2nd ETX | 99.38 | 14.43 | 31.29 |
| CA | 97.32 | 9.86 | 18.23 |
| Strict | | | |
| CA | 99.66 | 13.75 | 28.86 |
| Medium | | | |
+----------+---------------+------------------+---------------------+
Links:
o Contiki OS DIO DAGMC NSA extension (draft-koutsiamanis-roll-nsa-
extension branch) [1]
o Wireshark dissectors (for the optional TLV, i.e., PS) - currently
merged / in master [2]
Authors' Addresses
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis (editor)
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 126A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes 35510
FRANCE
Phone: +33 299 12 70 49
Email: aris@ariskou.com
Georgios Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 114A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes 35510
FRANCE
Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
Email: georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RPL MC NSA object type extension November 2018
Nicolas Montavont
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 106A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes 35510
FRANCE
Phone: +33 299 12 70 23
Email: nicolas.montavont@imt-atlantique.fr
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254
FRANCE
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires May 19, 2019 [Page 14]