Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP in an
IPv6 Network
Siti Ummi Masruroh
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
ummi.masruroh@uinjkt.ac.id
Fadly Robby
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
fadly.robby11@mhs.uinjkt.ac.id
Nashrul Hakiem
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
hakiem@uinjkt.ac.id
An Experimental of IPv6 Address Assignment for Global Unicast Address Using NS-3Eswar Publications
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) is the next generation protocol and in the near future, routers are going to become more faster and new technologies are going to reduce the Internet delay. IPv6 global unicast address is similar to IPv4 public address and globally routable. This Global unicast address assignment process provides new function called Stateless Address Auto Configuration (SLAAC) is a significant feature for host itself generating and configuring own addresses to enable communication. In this paper aims to describe experimental about IPv6 address assignment for global unicast address and evaluation of a host using various parameters such as Default router IP address, Throughput, Average End to End Delay and Domain Name Server (DNS) IP address. The study was carried out using an open source Network Simulator (NS-3) to study and analyses the behavior of IPv6 address assignment.
Implementation of isp mpls backbone network on i pv6 using 6 pe routers main PPTSatish Kumar
MINI PPT
IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) is a revision of the Internet Protocol (IP) developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). IPv6 is intended to succeed IPv4.
IPv6 implements a new addressing system that allows for far more addresses to be assigned than with Ipv4.
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is deployed by many service providers for establishing their backbone networks.
The Cisco implementation of IPv6 provider edge router over MPLS is called 6PE,and it enables IPv6 sites to communicate with each other over an MPLS IPv4 core network using MPLS label switched paths.
Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP in an
IPv6 Network
Siti Ummi Masruroh
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
ummi.masruroh@uinjkt.ac.id
Fadly Robby
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
fadly.robby11@mhs.uinjkt.ac.id
Nashrul Hakiem
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
hakiem@uinjkt.ac.id
An Experimental of IPv6 Address Assignment for Global Unicast Address Using NS-3Eswar Publications
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) is the next generation protocol and in the near future, routers are going to become more faster and new technologies are going to reduce the Internet delay. IPv6 global unicast address is similar to IPv4 public address and globally routable. This Global unicast address assignment process provides new function called Stateless Address Auto Configuration (SLAAC) is a significant feature for host itself generating and configuring own addresses to enable communication. In this paper aims to describe experimental about IPv6 address assignment for global unicast address and evaluation of a host using various parameters such as Default router IP address, Throughput, Average End to End Delay and Domain Name Server (DNS) IP address. The study was carried out using an open source Network Simulator (NS-3) to study and analyses the behavior of IPv6 address assignment.
Implementation of isp mpls backbone network on i pv6 using 6 pe routers main PPTSatish Kumar
MINI PPT
IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) is a revision of the Internet Protocol (IP) developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). IPv6 is intended to succeed IPv4.
IPv6 implements a new addressing system that allows for far more addresses to be assigned than with Ipv4.
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is deployed by many service providers for establishing their backbone networks.
The Cisco implementation of IPv6 provider edge router over MPLS is called 6PE,and it enables IPv6 sites to communicate with each other over an MPLS IPv4 core network using MPLS label switched paths.
As enterprises are moving towards IPv6 it is imaginable that the migration process will happen gradually even within a single enterprise. To facilitate this gradual migration several migration techniques have been defined. This document details about the transitioning techniques and process being followed by Happiest Minds.
On the migration of a large scale network from i pv4 to ipv6 environmentIJCNCJournal
This work mainly addresses the design a large scale network using dual stack mechanisms. We focused on
the most important theoretical concepts of the IPv6 protocol, such as addressing, address allocation,
routing with the OSPF and BGP protocols and routing protocols performance in dual stack network using
GNS3 and Wireshark simulators. we have a tendency to measure a perfect model and a true large-scale
network atmosphere victimization out there end-to-end activity techniques that focuses on a large-scale
IPv4 and IPv6 backbone and created performance the IPv4 and IPv6 network. In this paper, we compiled
IPv6 address planning in large scale network, performance statistics of each network in terms of TCP
throughput, delay jitters, packet loss rate, and round trip time. It is found that, a minor degradation within
the throughput of the TCP, delay jitter, a lower packet loss rate, and a rather longer round trip time are
occurred in a real large scale dual stack network
A Comparative Performance Analysis of Route Redistribution among Three Differ...IJCNCJournal
In an enterprise network, it is normal to use multiple dynamic routing protocols for forwarding packets.
Therefore, the route redistribution is an important issue in an enterprise network that has been configured
by multiple different routing protocols in its routers. In this study, we analyse the performance of the
combination of three routing protocols in each scenario and make a comparison among our scenarios. We
have used the OPNET 17.5 simulator to create the three scenarios in this paper by selecting three different
routing protocols from the distance vector and link state routing protocols in each scenario. In the first
scenario, the network routers are configured from EIGRP, IGRP, and IS-IS that is named
EIGRP_IGRP_ISIS in our simulation. The OSPF_IGRP_ISIS scenario is a mixed from EIGRP, IGRP, and
IS-IS protocols that is the second scenario. The third scenario is OSPF_IGRP_EIGRP that is the route
redistribution among OSPF, IGRP, and IS-IS protocols. The simulation results showed that the
performance of the EIGRP_IGRP_ISIS scenario is better than the other scenarios in terms of network
convergence time, throughput, video packet delay variation, and FTP download response time. In contrast,
the OSPF_IGRP_ISIS has less voice packet delay variation, video conferencing and voice packet end to
end delays, and queuing delay as compared with the two other scenarios. On the other hand, the
performance of the OSPF_IGRP_EIGRP scenario has better FTP upload response time, and voice jitter.
Scaling the Web to Billions of Nodes: Towards the IPv6 “Internet of Things” b...gogo6
gogo6 IPv6 Video Series. Event, presentation and speaker details below:
EVENT
gogoNET LIVE! 4: IPv6 & The Internet of Things. http://gogonetlive.com
November 12 – 14, 201, Silicon Valley, California
Agenda: http://gogonetlive.com/gogonetlive4-agenda.asp
PRESENTATION
Scaling the Web to Billions of Nodes: Towards the IPv6 “Internet of Things”
Abstract: http://www.gogo6.com/profiles/blogs/scaling-the-web-to-billions-of-nodes-towards-the-ipv6-internet-of
Presentation video: http://www.gogo6.com/video/scaling-the-web-to-billions-of-nodes-by-carsten-bormann-at-gogone
Interview video: http://www.gogo6.com/video/interview-with-carsten-bormann-at-gogonet-live-4-ipv6-iot-confere
SPEAKER
Carsten Bormann - Universität Bremen TZI & IETF WG Chair
Bio/Profile: http://www.gogo6.com/profile/CarstenBormann
MORE
Learn more about IPv6 on the gogoNET social network and our online training courses
http://www.gogo6.com/main
Get free IPv6 connectivity with Freenet6
http://www.gogo6.com/Freenet6
Subscribe to the gogo6 IPv6 Channel on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=gogo6videos
Follow gogo6 on Twitter
http://twitter.com/gogo6inc
Like gogo6 on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/IPv6-products-community-and-services-gogo6/161626696777
Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Networks. This is a book for Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing
&
DSR: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. November 2011,
Authors : Giorgos Papadakis & Manolis Surligas
Unicast Routing Protocols:RIP, OSPF, and BGP
Objectives
Upon completion you will be able to:
Distinguish between intra and interdomain routing
Understand distance vector routing and RIP
Understand link state routing and OSPF
Understand path vector routing and BGP
14.1 INTRA- AND INTERDOMAIN ROUTING
Routing inside an autonomous system is referred to as intradomain routing. Routing between autonomous systems is referred to as interdomain routing.
Abstract
The rapid growth in the Internet of Things (IoTs)
has change our life to be more intelligent and smart,
the development in the Wireless Sensors Networks
(WSNs), besides the wide use of the embedded devices
in different area like industry, home automation,
transport, agriculture and health care, which was led
the Routing Over Low-power and Lossy-network
(ROLL) working group to introduce the IPv6 Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL),
therein the RPL nodes have organized topology as a
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) and terminated at one
root to form the Destination Oriented DAGs
(DODAGs). In this paper by using InstantContiki3.0
and CoojaGUI we analyze the DODAG formations,
the RPL control messages that are send downward
and upward routes to construct and maintain
DODAG and the Rank computation by Objective
Function (OF) for inconsistency and loop detection,
also we evaluate the performance of the RPL based
on the Expected Transmission Count (ETX) OF that
enable RPL to select and optimize routes within RPL
instance, as well as we evaluate the following metrics:
The ETX Reliability Object (ETX), Radio Duty Cycle
(RDC), energy consumption, the received packets by
the motes and neighbor count. The simulation results
show that the RPL control messages flow in consistent
manner, the DODAG root able to connect to all of the
neighbor motes, also Rank illustration shows no loops
and DODAG topology consistent, as well as the ETX
can essentially take control over DODAG formations
and it has an effects in the RDC ratio, furthermore
most of the motes show reasonable low power
consumption, also the motes show acceptable number
of the received packets.
As enterprises are moving towards IPv6 it is imaginable that the migration process will happen gradually even within a single enterprise. To facilitate this gradual migration several migration techniques have been defined. This document details about the transitioning techniques and process being followed by Happiest Minds.
On the migration of a large scale network from i pv4 to ipv6 environmentIJCNCJournal
This work mainly addresses the design a large scale network using dual stack mechanisms. We focused on
the most important theoretical concepts of the IPv6 protocol, such as addressing, address allocation,
routing with the OSPF and BGP protocols and routing protocols performance in dual stack network using
GNS3 and Wireshark simulators. we have a tendency to measure a perfect model and a true large-scale
network atmosphere victimization out there end-to-end activity techniques that focuses on a large-scale
IPv4 and IPv6 backbone and created performance the IPv4 and IPv6 network. In this paper, we compiled
IPv6 address planning in large scale network, performance statistics of each network in terms of TCP
throughput, delay jitters, packet loss rate, and round trip time. It is found that, a minor degradation within
the throughput of the TCP, delay jitter, a lower packet loss rate, and a rather longer round trip time are
occurred in a real large scale dual stack network
A Comparative Performance Analysis of Route Redistribution among Three Differ...IJCNCJournal
In an enterprise network, it is normal to use multiple dynamic routing protocols for forwarding packets.
Therefore, the route redistribution is an important issue in an enterprise network that has been configured
by multiple different routing protocols in its routers. In this study, we analyse the performance of the
combination of three routing protocols in each scenario and make a comparison among our scenarios. We
have used the OPNET 17.5 simulator to create the three scenarios in this paper by selecting three different
routing protocols from the distance vector and link state routing protocols in each scenario. In the first
scenario, the network routers are configured from EIGRP, IGRP, and IS-IS that is named
EIGRP_IGRP_ISIS in our simulation. The OSPF_IGRP_ISIS scenario is a mixed from EIGRP, IGRP, and
IS-IS protocols that is the second scenario. The third scenario is OSPF_IGRP_EIGRP that is the route
redistribution among OSPF, IGRP, and IS-IS protocols. The simulation results showed that the
performance of the EIGRP_IGRP_ISIS scenario is better than the other scenarios in terms of network
convergence time, throughput, video packet delay variation, and FTP download response time. In contrast,
the OSPF_IGRP_ISIS has less voice packet delay variation, video conferencing and voice packet end to
end delays, and queuing delay as compared with the two other scenarios. On the other hand, the
performance of the OSPF_IGRP_EIGRP scenario has better FTP upload response time, and voice jitter.
Scaling the Web to Billions of Nodes: Towards the IPv6 “Internet of Things” b...gogo6
gogo6 IPv6 Video Series. Event, presentation and speaker details below:
EVENT
gogoNET LIVE! 4: IPv6 & The Internet of Things. http://gogonetlive.com
November 12 – 14, 201, Silicon Valley, California
Agenda: http://gogonetlive.com/gogonetlive4-agenda.asp
PRESENTATION
Scaling the Web to Billions of Nodes: Towards the IPv6 “Internet of Things”
Abstract: http://www.gogo6.com/profiles/blogs/scaling-the-web-to-billions-of-nodes-towards-the-ipv6-internet-of
Presentation video: http://www.gogo6.com/video/scaling-the-web-to-billions-of-nodes-by-carsten-bormann-at-gogone
Interview video: http://www.gogo6.com/video/interview-with-carsten-bormann-at-gogonet-live-4-ipv6-iot-confere
SPEAKER
Carsten Bormann - Universität Bremen TZI & IETF WG Chair
Bio/Profile: http://www.gogo6.com/profile/CarstenBormann
MORE
Learn more about IPv6 on the gogoNET social network and our online training courses
http://www.gogo6.com/main
Get free IPv6 connectivity with Freenet6
http://www.gogo6.com/Freenet6
Subscribe to the gogo6 IPv6 Channel on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=gogo6videos
Follow gogo6 on Twitter
http://twitter.com/gogo6inc
Like gogo6 on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/IPv6-products-community-and-services-gogo6/161626696777
Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Networks. This is a book for Ad-hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing
&
DSR: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Multi-Hop Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. November 2011,
Authors : Giorgos Papadakis & Manolis Surligas
Unicast Routing Protocols:RIP, OSPF, and BGP
Objectives
Upon completion you will be able to:
Distinguish between intra and interdomain routing
Understand distance vector routing and RIP
Understand link state routing and OSPF
Understand path vector routing and BGP
14.1 INTRA- AND INTERDOMAIN ROUTING
Routing inside an autonomous system is referred to as intradomain routing. Routing between autonomous systems is referred to as interdomain routing.
Abstract
The rapid growth in the Internet of Things (IoTs)
has change our life to be more intelligent and smart,
the development in the Wireless Sensors Networks
(WSNs), besides the wide use of the embedded devices
in different area like industry, home automation,
transport, agriculture and health care, which was led
the Routing Over Low-power and Lossy-network
(ROLL) working group to introduce the IPv6 Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL),
therein the RPL nodes have organized topology as a
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) and terminated at one
root to form the Destination Oriented DAGs
(DODAGs). In this paper by using InstantContiki3.0
and CoojaGUI we analyze the DODAG formations,
the RPL control messages that are send downward
and upward routes to construct and maintain
DODAG and the Rank computation by Objective
Function (OF) for inconsistency and loop detection,
also we evaluate the performance of the RPL based
on the Expected Transmission Count (ETX) OF that
enable RPL to select and optimize routes within RPL
instance, as well as we evaluate the following metrics:
The ETX Reliability Object (ETX), Radio Duty Cycle
(RDC), energy consumption, the received packets by
the motes and neighbor count. The simulation results
show that the RPL control messages flow in consistent
manner, the DODAG root able to connect to all of the
neighbor motes, also Rank illustration shows no loops
and DODAG topology consistent, as well as the ETX
can essentially take control over DODAG formations
and it has an effects in the RDC ratio, furthermore
most of the motes show reasonable low power
consumption, also the motes show acceptable number
of the received packets.
Analytical Execution of Dynamic Routing Protocols For Video Conferencing Appl...theijes
In modern network communications, Routing protocols are getting an important function for the user data path that are responsible for controlling the routers to communicate together and forward packets by routers over the best trip path from a base node to a destination one. Dynamic routing protocols represented by RIP, OSPF and EIGRP are explained here for addressing various networks with different traffic environments. In this paper, the performance of these protocols are estimating with many factors like convergence activity and duration, average throughput, network end-to-end delay, Point-to-Point Utilization over the simulation based on OPNET academic version. From Simulation results, EIGRP have a fastest time convergence compared with other topologies of networks are confirmed and the OSPF has the highest Point-to-Point Utilization in the network followed by EIGRP then RIP. So, there is an attempt for finding out which protocols are suitable for the networks and from analyses to understand the role of the routing protocols in different network scenarios
OSPF- Open Shortest path first, had conveyed the details of OSPF routing explaination which comes under Dynamic routing protocols and also configured OSPF Multi-area with the help of CISCO Packet tracer. The persons who were Pursuing CCNA will gain more exposure on overviewing this.
JCSA2013 05 Pascal Thubert - La frange polymorphe de l'InternetAfnic
Pascal Thubert (Cisco) présente "La frange polymorphe de l'Internet" lors de la Journée du Conseil scientifique de l'Afnic 2013 (JCSA2013), le 9 juillet 2013 dans les locaux de Télécom ParisTech.
ospf is routing protocol.The OSPF protocol is a link state Protocol that handles routing for IP traffic.The two important concepts in case of OSPF are Autonomous Systems and Areas.
With the exhaustion of global IPv4 addresses, all operators cannot apply to the IPv4 address pool of the public network. All countries have adopted IPv6 as the direction of the next-generation Internet, and China has also clearly accelerated the strategy of building IPv6-based next-generation Internet.
International Journal of Computational Engineering Research (IJCER) is dedicated to protecting personal information and will make every reasonable effort to handle collected information appropriately. All information collected, as well as related requests, will be handled as carefully and efficiently as possible in accordance with IJCER standards for integrity and objectivity.
Network optimization of ipv6 networks using tunnel header compressioneSAT Journals
Abstract
IPv6 is the successor internet protocol which will eventually replace IPv4. These two protocols are not compatible with each other and it will take time to migrate towards IPv6, until then both the protocols need to coexist for a long time. The main overhead involved with both the protocols is header length of 20 bytes in case of IPv4 and of 40 bytes in case of IPv6. This overhead will affect the network performance specially over tunneling mechanism where one header is encapsulated inside another. Tunneling is widely deployed over the network for various purposes like network security, mobility and transition mechanism. Header compression can be applied to compress the excess protocol headers to improve the performance of network. In this paper we want to use header compression in context of 6 to 4 tunneling transition. Using header compression over 6 to 4 tunnels would result in better response times reduced packet size and reduced packet losses. We want to simulate this algorithm using EXata Cyber 1.1 simulator.
Keywords: Header Compression, IPv4, IPv6, ROHC, 6 to 4 tunneling.
PLNOG 13: Jeff Tantsura: Programmable and Application aware IP/MPLS networkingPROIDEA
Jeff Tantsura – Head of Technology Strategy Routing at Ericsson & WG Chair of RTGWG at IETF. Jeff has over 20 years of experience in the design and implementation of complex internet products and solutions, as well as 7+ years in Product Management. Skill set includes an expert level of knowledge of IP/MPLS networking and SDN solutions as well as ability to monetize it. More than 10 patents/applications – mostly in IP Routing Fast Convergence area, some L2 (SPB/EVPN). Active contributor to the IETF (chairing Routing Area Working Group): authoring/co-authoring 20+ IETF documents: routing, MPLS, MULTICAST, L2VPN and PCE WG’s. Frequent speaker at internal and public events.
Topic of Presentation: Programmable and Application aware IP/MPLS networking
Language: English
Abstract: The session will cover the topic of controlling and managing IP / MPLS architecture using SDN. The concept of Segment Routing (SR) will be presented as this is currently a subject of IETF standardization. The Segment Routing protocol extends the existing set of IP / MPLS-oriented mechanisms to control network using the SDN controller. The concept of support for Segment Routing based on Open Daylight architecture will be shown. Jeff will present examples of Segment Routing applications such as: optimization of the network in near real-time, network applications optimized angle and multi-tenant environment, segment routing and packet optical networks. Jeff Tantsura (speaker) is the co-author of emerging standardization documents relating to Segment Routing.
Study about Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP)Assia Bakrim
In the past few years, proposed solutions for the improvement of
internet mobility and scalability issues are being studied. One of these proposals
introduced is the Locator/ Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). It is design to
overcome this limitation. In this paper, we will briefly introduce, based on
theoretical research, the background of this protocol and describe a scenario
regarding the mapping system deployed nowadays. This paper specifies the
basic elements needed to deploy within this system.
Keywords: LISP, Mobility, Routing, Tunneling, Traffic, Internet, Protocol,
Mapping.
In the past few years, proposed solutions for the improvement of internet mobility and scalability issues are being studied. One of these proposals introduced is the Locator/ Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). It is design to overcome this limitation. In this paper, we will briefly introduce, based on theoretical research, the background of this protocol and describe a scenario regarding the mapping system deployed nowadays. This paper specifies the basic elements needed to deploy within this system.
Keywords: LISP, Mobility, Routing, Tunneling, Traffic, Internet, Protocol, Mapping
Dev Dives: Train smarter, not harder – active learning and UiPath LLMs for do...UiPathCommunity
💥 Speed, accuracy, and scaling – discover the superpowers of GenAI in action with UiPath Document Understanding and Communications Mining™:
See how to accelerate model training and optimize model performance with active learning
Learn about the latest enhancements to out-of-the-box document processing – with little to no training required
Get an exclusive demo of the new family of UiPath LLMs – GenAI models specialized for processing different types of documents and messages
This is a hands-on session specifically designed for automation developers and AI enthusiasts seeking to enhance their knowledge in leveraging the latest intelligent document processing capabilities offered by UiPath.
Speakers:
👨🏫 Andras Palfi, Senior Product Manager, UiPath
👩🏫 Lenka Dulovicova, Product Program Manager, UiPath
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdfPaige Cruz
Monitoring and observability aren’t traditionally found in software curriculums and many of us cobble this knowledge together from whatever vendor or ecosystem we were first introduced to and whatever is a part of your current company’s observability stack.
While the dev and ops silo continues to crumble….many organizations still relegate monitoring & observability as the purview of ops, infra and SRE teams. This is a mistake - achieving a highly observable system requires collaboration up and down the stack.
I, a former op, would like to extend an invitation to all application developers to join the observability party will share these foundational concepts to build on:
Welocme to ViralQR, your best QR code generator.ViralQR
Welcome to ViralQR, your best QR code generator available on the market!
At ViralQR, we design static and dynamic QR codes. Our mission is to make business operations easier and customer engagement more powerful through the use of QR technology. Be it a small-scale business or a huge enterprise, our easy-to-use platform provides multiple choices that can be tailored according to your company's branding and marketing strategies.
Our Vision
We are here to make the process of creating QR codes easy and smooth, thus enhancing customer interaction and making business more fluid. We very strongly believe in the ability of QR codes to change the world for businesses in their interaction with customers and are set on making that technology accessible and usable far and wide.
Our Achievements
Ever since its inception, we have successfully served many clients by offering QR codes in their marketing, service delivery, and collection of feedback across various industries. Our platform has been recognized for its ease of use and amazing features, which helped a business to make QR codes.
Our Services
At ViralQR, here is a comprehensive suite of services that caters to your very needs:
Static QR Codes: Create free static QR codes. These QR codes are able to store significant information such as URLs, vCards, plain text, emails and SMS, Wi-Fi credentials, and Bitcoin addresses.
Dynamic QR codes: These also have all the advanced features but are subscription-based. They can directly link to PDF files, images, micro-landing pages, social accounts, review forms, business pages, and applications. In addition, they can be branded with CTAs, frames, patterns, colors, and logos to enhance your branding.
Pricing and Packages
Additionally, there is a 14-day free offer to ViralQR, which is an exceptional opportunity for new users to take a feel of this platform. One can easily subscribe from there and experience the full dynamic of using QR codes. The subscription plans are not only meant for business; they are priced very flexibly so that literally every business could afford to benefit from our service.
Why choose us?
ViralQR will provide services for marketing, advertising, catering, retail, and the like. The QR codes can be posted on fliers, packaging, merchandise, and banners, as well as to substitute for cash and cards in a restaurant or coffee shop. With QR codes integrated into your business, improve customer engagement and streamline operations.
Comprehensive Analytics
Subscribers of ViralQR receive detailed analytics and tracking tools in light of having a view of the core values of QR code performance. Our analytics dashboard shows aggregate views and unique views, as well as detailed information about each impression, including time, device, browser, and estimated location by city and country.
So, thank you for choosing ViralQR; we have an offer of nothing but the best in terms of QR code services to meet business diversity!
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Le nuove frontiere dell'AI nell'RPA con UiPath Autopilot™UiPathCommunity
In questo evento online gratuito, organizzato dalla Community Italiana di UiPath, potrai esplorare le nuove funzionalità di Autopilot, il tool che integra l'Intelligenza Artificiale nei processi di sviluppo e utilizzo delle Automazioni.
📕 Vedremo insieme alcuni esempi dell'utilizzo di Autopilot in diversi tool della Suite UiPath:
Autopilot per Studio Web
Autopilot per Studio
Autopilot per Apps
Clipboard AI
GenAI applicata alla Document Understanding
👨🏫👨💻 Speakers:
Stefano Negro, UiPath MVPx3, RPA Tech Lead @ BSP Consultant
Flavio Martinelli, UiPath MVP 2023, Technical Account Manager @UiPath
Andrei Tasca, RPA Solutions Team Lead @NTT Data
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 4DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 4. In this session, we will cover Test Manager overview along with SAP heatmap.
The UiPath Test Manager overview with SAP heatmap webinar offers a concise yet comprehensive exploration of the role of a Test Manager within SAP environments, coupled with the utilization of heatmaps for effective testing strategies.
Participants will gain insights into the responsibilities, challenges, and best practices associated with test management in SAP projects. Additionally, the webinar delves into the significance of heatmaps as a visual aid for identifying testing priorities, areas of risk, and resource allocation within SAP landscapes. Through this session, attendees can expect to enhance their understanding of test management principles while learning practical approaches to optimize testing processes in SAP environments using heatmap visualization techniques
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into SAP testing best practices
2. Heatmap utilization for testing
3. Optimization of testing processes
4. Demo
Topics covered:
Execution from the test manager
Orchestrator execution result
Defect reporting
SAP heatmap example with demo
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
SAP Sapphire 2024 - ASUG301 building better apps with SAP Fiori.pdfPeter Spielvogel
Building better applications for business users with SAP Fiori.
• What is SAP Fiori and why it matters to you
• How a better user experience drives measurable business benefits
• How to get started with SAP Fiori today
• How SAP Fiori elements accelerates application development
• How SAP Build Code includes SAP Fiori tools and other generative artificial intelligence capabilities
• How SAP Fiori paves the way for using AI in SAP apps
Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to ProductionAggregage
Join Maher Hanafi, VP of Engineering at Betterworks, in this new session where he'll share a practical framework to transform Gen AI prototypes into impactful products! He'll delve into the complexities of data collection and management, model selection and optimization, and ensuring security, scalability, and responsible use.
Elevating Tactical DDD Patterns Through Object CalisthenicsDorra BARTAGUIZ
After immersing yourself in the blue book and its red counterpart, attending DDD-focused conferences, and applying tactical patterns, you're left with a crucial question: How do I ensure my design is effective? Tactical patterns within Domain-Driven Design (DDD) serve as guiding principles for creating clear and manageable domain models. However, achieving success with these patterns requires additional guidance. Interestingly, we've observed that a set of constraints initially designed for training purposes remarkably aligns with effective pattern implementation, offering a more ‘mechanical’ approach. Let's explore together how Object Calisthenics can elevate the design of your tactical DDD patterns, offering concrete help for those venturing into DDD for the first time!
GraphRAG is All You need? LLM & Knowledge GraphGuy Korland
Guy Korland, CEO and Co-founder of FalkorDB, will review two articles on the integration of language models with knowledge graphs.
1. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08302
2. Microsoft Research's GraphRAG paper and a review paper on various uses of knowledge graphs:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/graphrag-unlocking-llm-discovery-on-narrative-private-data/
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 3DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 3. In this session, we will cover desktop automation along with UI automation.
Topics covered:
UI automation Introduction,
UI automation Sample
Desktop automation flow
Pradeep Chinnala, Senior Consultant Automation Developer @WonderBotz and UiPath MVP
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Accelerate your Kubernetes clusters with Varnish CachingThijs Feryn
A presentation about the usage and availability of Varnish on Kubernetes. This talk explores the capabilities of Varnish caching and shows how to use the Varnish Helm chart to deploy it to Kubernetes.
This presentation was delivered at K8SUG Singapore. See https://feryn.eu/presentations/accelerate-your-kubernetes-clusters-with-varnish-caching-k8sug-singapore-28-2024 for more details.
FIDO Alliance Osaka Seminar: Passkeys and the Road Ahead.pdf
6low pan
1. [Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-6man-r...] [Diff1] [Diff2]
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Hui
Request for Comments: 6554 JP. Vasseur
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Culler
UC Berkeley
V. Manral
Hewlett Packard Co.
March 2012
An IPv6 Routing Header for
Source Routes with
the Routing Protocol for Low-
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)
Abstract
In Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs), memory constraints on routers
may limit them to maintaining, at most, a few routes. In some
configurations, it is necessary to use these memory-constrained
routers to deliver datagrams to nodes within the LLN. The Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) can be used in some
deployments to store most, if not all, routes on one (e.g., the
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) root) or a few routers and forward the
IPv6 datagram using a source routing technique to avoid large routing
tables on memory-constrained routers. This document specifies a new
IPv6 Routing header type for delivering datagrams within a RPL
routing domain.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
2. Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554.
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
(http://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
2. Overview ........................................................3
3. Format of the RPL Routing Header ................................6
4. RPL Router Behavior .............................................8
4.1. Generating Source Routing Headers ..........................8
4.2. Processing Source Routing Headers ..........................9
5. Security Considerations ........................................11
5.1. Source Routing Attacks ....................................11
5.2. ICMPv6 Attacks ............................................12
6. IANA Considerations ............................................12
7. Acknowledgements ...............................................12
8. References .....................................................12
8.1. Normative References ......................................12
8.2. Informative References ....................................13
1. Introduction
3. The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) is a
distance vector IPv6 routing protocol designed for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks (LLNs) [RFC6550]. Such networks are typically
constrained in resources (limited communication data rate, processing
power, energy capacity, memory). In particular, some LLN
configurations may utilize LLN routers where memory constraints limit
nodes to maintaining only a small number of default routes and no
other destinations. However, it may be necessary to utilize such
memory-constrained routers to forward datagrams and maintain
reachability to destinations within the LLN.
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
To utilize paths that include memory-constrained routers, RPL relies
on source routing. In one deployment model of RPL, more-capable
routers collect routing information and form paths to arbitrary
destinations within a RPL routing domain. However, a source routing
mechanism supported by IPv6 is needed to deliver datagrams.
This document specifies the Source Routing Header (SRH) for use
strictly between RPL routers in the same RPL routing domain. A RPL
routing domain is a collection of RPL routers under the control of a
single administration. The boundaries of routing domains are defined
by network management by setting some links to be exterior, or inter-
domain, links.
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
2. Overview
The format of the SRH draws from that of the Type 0 Routing header
(RH0) [RFC2460]. However, the SRH introduces mechanisms to compact
the source route entries when all entries share the same prefix with
the IPv6 Destination Address of a packet carrying an SRH, a typical
scenario in LLNs using source routing. The compaction mechanism
4. reduces consumption of scarce resources such as channel capacity.
The SRH also differs from RH0 in the processing rules to alleviate
security concerns that led to the deprecation of RH0 [RFC5095].
First, RPL routers implement a strict source route policy where each
and every IPv6 hop between the source and destination of the source
route is specified within the SRH. Note that the source route may be
a subset of the path between the actual source and destination and is
discussed further below. Second, an SRH is only used between RPL
routers within a RPL routing domain. RPL Border Routers, responsible
for connecting other RPL routing domains and IP domains that use
other routing protocols, do not allow datagrams already carrying an
SRH header to enter or exit a RPL routing domain. Third, a RPL
router drops datagrams that include multiple addresses assigned to
any interfaces on that router to avoid forwarding loops.
There are two cases that determine how to include an SRH when a RPL
router requires the use of an SRH to deliver a datagram to its
destination.
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
1. If the SRH specifies the complete path from source to
destination, the router places the SRH directly in the datagram
itself.
2. If the SRH only specifies a subset of the path from source to
destination, the router uses IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling [RFC2473] and
places the SRH in the outer IPv6 header. Use of tunneling
ensures that the datagram is delivered unmodified and that ICMP
errors return to the source of the SRH rather than the source of
the original datagram.
In a RPL network, Case 1 occurs when both source and destination are
within a RPL routing domain and a single SRH is used to specify the
entire path from source to destination, as shown in the following
figure:
+--------------------+
| |
| (S) -------> (D) |
| |
+--------------------+
RPL Routing Domain
In the above scenario, datagrams traveling from source, S, to
destination, D, have the following packet structure:
5. +--------+---------+-------------//-+
| IPv6 | Source | IPv6 |
| Header | Routing | Payload |
| | Header | |
+--------+---------+-------------//-+
S's address is carried in the IPv6 header's Source Address field.
D's address is carried in the last entry of the SRH for all but the
last hop, when D's address is carried in the IPv6 header's
Destination Address field of the packet carrying the SRH.
In a RPL network, Case 2 occurs for all datagrams that have a source
and/or destination outside the RPL routing domain, as shown in the
following diagram:
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
+-----------------+
| |
| (S) --------> (R) --------> (D)
| |
+-----------------+
RPL Routing Domain
+-----------------+
| |
(S) --------> (R) --------> (D) |
| |
+-----------------+
RPL Routing Domain
+-----------------+
| |
(S) --------> (R) ------------> (R) --------> (D)
| |
+-----------------+
RPL Routing Domain
In the scenarios above, R may indicate a RPL Border Router (when
connecting to other routing domains) or a RPL Router (when connecting
to hosts). The datagrams have the following structure when traveling
within the RPL routing domain:
+--------+---------+--------+-------------//-+
| Outer | Source | Inner | IPv6 |
6. | IPv6 | Routing | IPv6 | Payload |
| Header | Header | Header | |
+--------+---------+--------+-------------//-+
<--- Original Packet --->
<--- Tunneled Packet --->
Note that the outer header (including the SRH) is added and removed
by the RPL router.
Case 2 also occurs whenever a RPL router needs to insert a source
route when forwarding a datagram. One such use case with RPL is to
have all RPL traffic flow through a Border Router and have the Border
Router use source routes to deliver datagrams to their final
destination. When including the SRH using tunneled mode, the Border
Router would encapsulate the received datagram unmodified using IPv6-
in-IPv6 and include an SRH in the outer IPv6 header.
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
+-----------------+
| |
| (S) ------- |
| |
| (LBR)
| / |
| (D) <------/ |
| |
+-----------------+
RPL Routing Domain
In the above scenario, datagrams travel from S to D through the Low-
Power and Lossy Network Border Router (LBR). Between S and the LBR,
the datagrams are routed using the DAG built by the RPL and do not
contain an SRH. The LBR encapsulates received datagrams unmodified
using IPv6-in-IPv6 and the SRH is included in the outer IPv6 header.
3. Format of the RPL Routing Header
The Source Routing Header has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7. | Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Addresses[1..n] .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Next Header 8-bit selector. Identifies the type of header
immediately following the Routing header. Uses
the same values as the IPv6 Next Header field
[RFC2460].
Hdr Ext Len 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the Routing
header in 8-octet units, not including the first
8 octets. Note that when Addresses[1..n] are
compressed (i.e., value of CmprI or CmprE is not
0), Hdr Ext Len does not equal twice the number
of Addresses.
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
Routing Type 8-bit selector. Identifies the particular
Routing header variant. An SRH should set the
Routing Type to 3.
Segments Left 8-bit unsigned integer. Number of route segments
remaining, i.e., number of explicitly listed
intermediate nodes still to be visited before
reaching the final destination. The originator
of an SRH sets this field to n, the number of
addresses contained in Addresses[1..n].
CmprI 4-bit unsigned integer. Number of prefix octets
from each segment, except than the last segment,
(i.e., segments 1 through n-1) that are elided.
For example, an SRH carrying full IPv6 addresses
in Addresses[1..n-1] sets CmprI to 0.
CmprE 4-bit unsigned integer. Number of prefix octets
from the last segment (i.e., segment n) that are
elided. For example, an SRH carrying a full IPv6
address in Addresses[n] sets CmprE to 0.
Pad 4-bit unsigned integer. Number of octets that
are used for padding after Address[n] at the end
of the SRH.
8. Reserved This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to
zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
Address[1..n] Vector of addresses, numbered 1 to n. Each
vector element in [1..n-1] has size (16 - CmprI)
and element [n] has size (16-CmprE). The
originator of an SRH places the next (first)
hop's IPv6 address in the IPv6 header's IPv6
Destination Address and the second hop's IPv6
address as the first address in Address[1..n]
(i.e., Address[1]).
The SRH shares the same basic format as the Type 0 Routing header
[RFC2460]. When carrying full IPv6 addresses, the CmprI, CmprE, and
Pad fields are set to 0 and the only difference between the SRH and
Type 0 encodings is the value of the Routing Type field.
A common network configuration for a RPL routing domain is that all
routers within a RPL routing domain share a common prefix. The SRH
introduces the CmprI, CmprE, and Pad fields to allow compaction of
the Address[1..n] vector when all entries share the same prefix as
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
the IPv6 Destination Address field of the packet carrying the SRH.
The CmprI and CmprE fields indicate the number of prefix octets that
are shared with the IPv6 Destination Address of the packet carrying
the SRH. The shared prefix octets are not carried within the Routing
header and each entry in Address[1..n-1] has size (16 - CmprI) octets
and Address[n] has size (16 - CmprE) octets. When CmprI or CmprE is
non-zero, there may exist unused octets between the last entry,
Address[n], and the end of the Routing header. The Pad field
indicates the number of unused octets that are used for padding.
Note that when CmprI and CmprE are both 0, Pad MUST carry a value of
0.
The SRH MUST NOT specify a path that visits a node more than once.
When generating an SRH, the source may not know the mapping between
IPv6 addresses and nodes. Minimally, the source MUST ensure that
IPv6 addresses do not appear more than once and the IPv6 Source and
Destination addresses of the encapsulating datagram do not appear in
the SRH.
Multicast addresses MUST NOT appear in an SRH or in the IPv6
Destination Address field of a datagram carrying an SRH.
4. RPL Router Behavior
9. 4.1. Generating Source Routing Headers
To deliver an IPv6 datagram to its destination, a router may need to
generate a new SRH and specify a strict source route. When the
router is the source of the original packet and the destination is
known to be within the same RPL routing domain, the router SHOULD
include the SRH directly within the original packet. Otherwise, the
router MUST use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling [RFC2473] and place the SRH in
the tunnel header. Using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling ensures that the
delivered datagram remains unmodified and that ICMPv6 errors
generated by an SRH are sent back to the router that generated the
SRH.
When using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, in order to respect the IPv6 Hop
Limit value of the original datagram, a RPL router generating an SRH
MUST set the Segments Left to less than the original datagram's IPv6
Hop Limit value upon forwarding. In the case that the source route
is longer than the original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit, only the
initial hops (determined by the original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit)
should be included in the SRH. If the RPL router is not the source
of the original datagram, the original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit
field is decremented before generating the SRH. After generating the
SRH, the RPL router decrements the original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit
value by the SRH Segments Left value. Processing the SRH Segments
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
Left and original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit fields in this way
ensures that ICMPv6 Time Exceeded errors occur as would be expected
on more traditional IPv6 networks that forward datagrams without
tunneling.
To avoid fragmentation, it is desirable to employ MTU sizes that
allow for the header expansion (i.e., at least 1280 + 40 (outer IP
header) + SRH_MAX_SIZE), where SRH_MAX_SIZE is the maximum path
length for a given RPL network. To take advantage of this, however,
the communicating endpoints need to be aware of the MTU along the
path (i.e., through Path MTU Discovery). Unfortunately, the larger
MTU size may not be available on all links (e.g., 1280 octets on IPv6
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) links). However,
it is expected that much of the traffic on these types of networks
consists of much smaller messages than the MTU, so performance
degradation through fragmentation would be limited.
10. 4.2. Processing Source Routing Headers
As specified in [RFC2460], a routing header is not examined or
processed until it reaches the node identified in the Destination
Address field of the IPv6 header. In that node, dispatching on the
Next Header field of the immediately preceding header causes the
Routing header module to be invoked.
The function of the SRH is intended to be very similar to the Type 0
Routing header defined in [RFC2460]. After the routing header has
been processed and the IPv6 datagram resubmitted to the IPv6 module
for processing, the IPv6 Destination Address contains the next hop's
address. When forwarding an IPv6 datagram that contains an SRH with
a non-zero Segments Left value, if the IPv6 Destination Address is
not on-link, a router MUST drop the datagram and SHOULD send an ICMP
Destination Unreachable (ICMPv6 Type 1) message with ICMPv6 Code set
to 7 to the packet's Source Address. This ICMPv6 Code indicates that
the IPv6 Destination Address is not on-link and the router cannot
satisfy the strict source route requirement. When generating ICMPv6
error messages, the rules in Section 2.4 of [RFC4443] MUST be
observed.
To detect loops in the SRH, a router MUST determine if the SRH
includes multiple addresses assigned to any interface on that router.
If such addresses appear more than once and are separated by at least
one address not assigned to that router, the router MUST drop the
packet and SHOULD send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, to the
Source Address. While this loop check does add significant per-
packet processing overhead, it is required to mitigate bandwidth
exhaustion attacks that led to the deprecation of RH0 [RFC5095].
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
The following describes the algorithm performed when processing an
SRH:
if Segments Left = 0 {
proceed to process the next header in the packet, whose type is
identified by the Next Header field in the Routing header
}
else {
compute n, the number of addresses in the Routing header, by
n = (((Hdr Ext Len * 8) - Pad - (16 - CmprE)) / (16 - CmprI)) + 1
if Segments Left is greater than n {
send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to the Source
Address, pointing to the Segments Left field, and discard the
packet
11. }
else {
decrement Segments Left by 1
compute i, the index of the next address to be visited in
the address vector, by subtracting Segments Left from n
if Address[i] or the IPv6 Destination Address is multicast {
discard the packet
}
else if 2 or more entries in Address[1..n] are assigned to
local interface and are separated by at least one
address not assigned to local interface {
send an ICMP Parameter Problem (Code 0) and discard the
packet
}
else {
swap the IPv6 Destination Address and Address[i]
if the IPv6 Hop Limit is less than or equal to 1 {
send an ICMP Time Exceeded -- Hop Limit Exceeded in
Transit message to the Source Address and discard the
packet
}
else {
decrement the Hop Limit by 1
resubmit the packet to the IPv6 module for transmission
to the new destination
}
}
}
}
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
RPL routers are responsible for ensuring that an SRH is only used
between RPL routers:
1. For datagrams destined to a RPL router, the router processes the
packet in the usual way. For instance, if the SRH was included
using tunneled mode and the RPL router serves as the tunnel
endpoint, the router removes the outer IPv6 header, at the same
time removing the SRH as well.
2. Datagrams destined elsewhere within the same RPL routing domain
are forwarded to the correct interface.
3. Datagrams destined to nodes outside the RPL routing domain are
dropped if the outermost IPv6 header contains an SRH not
generated by the RPL router forwarding the datagram.
12. 5. Security Considerations
5.1. Source Routing Attacks
The RPL message security mechanisms defined in [RFC6550] do not apply
to the RPL Source Route Header. This specification does not provide
any confidentiality, integrity, or authenticity mechanisms to protect
the SRH.
[RFC5095] deprecates the Type 0 Routing header due to a number of
significant attacks that are referenced in that document. Such
attacks include bypassing filtering devices, reaching otherwise
unreachable Internet systems, network topology discovery, bandwidth
exhaustion, and defeating anycast.
Because this document specifies that the SRH is only for use within a
RPL routing domain, such attacks cannot be mounted from outside a RPL
routing domain. As specified in this document, RPL routers MUST drop
datagrams entering or exiting a RPL routing domain that contain an
SRH in the IPv6 Extension headers.
Such attacks, however, can be mounted from within a RPL routing
domain. To mitigate bandwidth exhaustion attacks, this specification
requires RPL routers to check for loops in the SRH and drop datagrams
that contain such loops. Attacks that include bypassing filtering
devices and reaching otherwise unreachable Internet systems are not
as relevant in mesh networks since the topologies are, by their very
nature, highly dynamic. The RPL routing protocol is designed to
provide reachability to all devices within a RPL routing domain and
may utilize routes that traverse any number of devices in any order.
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
Even so, these attacks and others (e.g., defeating anycast and
routing topology discovery) can occur within a RPL routing domain
when using this specification.
5.2. ICMPv6 Attacks
13. The generation of ICMPv6 error messages may be used to attempt
denial-of-service attacks by sending an error-causing SRH in back-to-
back datagrams. An implementation that correctly follows Section 2.4
of [RFC4443] would be protected by the ICMPv6 rate-limiting
mechanism.
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new IPv6 Routing Type, the "RPL Source Route
Header", and has been assigned number 3 by IANA.
This document defines a new ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable Code,
"Error in Source Routing Header", and has been assigned number 7 by
IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Jari Arkko, Ralph Droms, Adrian Farrel, Stephen
Farrell, Richard Kelsey, Suresh Krishnan, Erik Nordmark, Pascal
Thubert, Sean Turner, and Tim Winter for their comments and
suggestions that helped shape this document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
14. of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
December 2007.
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 6554 RPL Source Route Header March 2012
8.2. Informative References
[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, March 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Jonathan W. Hui
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Phone: +408 424 1547
EMail: jonhui@cisco.com
JP. Vasseur
Cisco Systems
11, Rue Camille Desmoulins
Issy Les Moulineaux 92782
France
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
David E. Culler
UC Berkeley
465 Soda Hall
Berkeley, California 94720
USA
Phone: +510 643 7572
EMail: culler@cs.berkeley.edu
Vishwas Manral
Hewlett Packard Co.
19111 Pruneridge Ave.
Cupertino, California 95014
USA
15. EMail: vishwas.manral@hp.com
Hui, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.100, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/