Multi-Topology Extension for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)
draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-01

Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET)                             C. Dearlove
Internet-Draft                                           BAE Systems ATC
Intended status: Experimental                                 T. Clausen
Expires: January 13, 2014                       LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
                                                           July 12, 2013

 Multi-Topology Extension for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
                           version 2 (OLSRv2)
              draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-01

Abstract

   This specification describes an extension to the Optimized Link State
   Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) to support multiple routing
   topologies, while retaining interoperability with OLSRv2 routers that
   do not implement this extension.

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 http://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 January 13, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Applicability Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Protocol Overview and Functioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  Information Bases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     6.1.  Local Attached Network Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     6.2.  Link Sets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.3.  2-Hop Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.4.  Neighbor Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.5.  Router Topology Set  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.6.  Routable Address Topology Set  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.7.  Attached Network Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.8.  Routing Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.1.  Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       7.1.1.  MPR_TYPES TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.2.  Address Block TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       7.2.1.  LINK_METRIC TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       7.2.2.  MPR TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  HELLO Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.1.  HELLO Message Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.2.  HELLO Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  TC Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.1.  TC Message Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.2.  TC Message Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. MPR Calculation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   11. Routing Set Calculation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   12. Management Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   13. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   14. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   15. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

1.  Introduction

   The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol, version 2 [OLSRv2] is a
   proactive link state routing protocol designed for use in mobile ad
   hoc networks (MANETs) [RFC2501].  One of the significant improvements
   of OLSRv2 over its Experimental precursor [RFC3626] is the ability of
   OLSRv2 to route over other than minimum hop routes, using a link
   metric.

   A limitation that remains in OLSRv2 is that it uses a single link
   metric type for all routes.  However in some MANETs it would be
   desirable to be able to use alternative metrics for different packet
   routing.  This specification describes an extension to OLSRv2, that
   is designed to permit this, while maintaining maximal
   interoperability with OLSRv2 routers not implementing this extension.

   The purpose of OLSRv2 can be described as to create and maintain a
   Routing Set, which contains all the necessary information to populate
   an IP routing table.  In a similar way, the role of this extension
   can be described as to create and maintain multiple Routing Sets, one
   for each link metric type supported by the router maintaining the
   sets.

2.  Terminology and Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

   This specification uses the terminology of [RFC5444], [RFC6130] and
   [OLSRv2], which is to be interpreted as described in these
   specifications.

   Additionally, this specification uses the following terminology:

   Router -  A MANET router that implements [OLSRv2].

   MT-OLSRv2 -  The protocol defined in this specification as an
      extension to [OLSRv2].

   This specification introduces the notation map[range -> type] to
   represent an associative map from elements of the range, which in
   this specification is always a set of link metric types that the
   router supports (either IFACE_METRIC_TYPES or ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES, as
   defined in Section 5), to a type, which in this specification is
   always either boolean or metric-value (either a representable link

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

   metric value, as described in [OLSRv2], or UNKNOWN_METRIC).

3.  Applicability Statement

   The protocol described in this specification is applicable to a MANET
   for which OLSRv2 is otherwise applicable (see [OLSRv2]), but in which
   multiple topologies are maintained, each characterized by a different
   choice of link metric type.  It is assumed, but outside the scope of
   this specification, that the network layer is able to choose which
   topology to use for each packet, for example using the DiffServ Code
   Point (DSCP) defined in [RFC2474].

4.  Protocol Overview and Functioning

   The purpose of this specification is to extend [OLSRv2] so as to
   enable a router to establish and maintain multiple routing topologies
   in a MANET, each topology associated with a link metric type.
   Routers in the MANET may each form part of some or all of these
   topologies, and each router will maintain a Routing Set for each
   topology that it forms part of, allowing separate routing of packets
   for each topology.

   Each router implementing this specification selects a set of link
   metric types for each OLSRv2 interface.  If there may be any routers
   in the MANET that implement OLSRv2, but not OLSRv2-MT, then the link
   metric used by such routers must be included in those selected on all
   OLSRv2 interfaces that may be able to communicate with any routers
   that do not implement MT-OLSRv2.  Otherwise routers may make
   independent selections.

   Each router then determines an incoming link metric for each link
   metric type selected for each OLSRv2 interface.  These link metrics
   are distributed using link metric TLVs contained in all HELLO
   messages sent on OLSRv2 interfaces, and all TC messages.

   In addition to link and neighbor metric values for each link metric
   type, router MPR (multipoint relay) and MPR selector status, and
   advertised neighbor status, is maintained per supported neighbor
   metric type for each symmetric 1-hop neighbor.

   More so than OLSRv2, the use of multiple metric types across the
   MANET must be managed, by administrative configuration or otherwise.
   Similarly to other decisions that may be made using OLSRv2, a bad
   collective choice will make the MANET anywhere from inefficient to
   non-functional, so care will be needed in selecting supported link
   metric types across the MANET.

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

5.  Parameters

   The parameters used in [OLSRv2], including from its normative
   references, are used in this specification with a single change.

   Each OLSRv2 interface will support a number of link metric types,
   corresponding to type extensions of the LINK_METRIC TLV defined in
   [OLSRv2].  The router parameter LINK_METRIC_TYPE, used by routers
   that do not implement MT-OLSRv2, and with that definition in this
   specification, is replaced in routers implementing MT-OLSRv2 by an
   interface parameter array IFACE_METRIC_TYPES and a router parameter
   array ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES.  Each element in these arrays is a link
   metric type (i.e., a type extension used by the LINK_METRIC TLV
   [OLSRv2]).

   The interface parameter array IFACE_METRIC_TYPES contains the link
   metric types supported on that OLSRv2 interface.  The router
   parameter array ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES is the union of all of the
   IFACE_METRIC_TYPES.  Both arrays MUST be without repetitions.

   If in a given deployment there may be any routers that do not
   implement MT-OLSRv2, then IFACE_METRIC_TYPES MUST include
   LINK_METRIC_TYPE if that OLSRv2 interface may be able to communicate
   with any routers that do not implement MT-OLSRv2.  In that case,
   ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES MUST also include LINK_METRIC_TYPE.

6.  Information Bases

   The Information Bases specified in [OLSRv2], which extend those
   specified in in [RFC6130], are used and extended in this
   specification.  With the exception of the Routing Set, the extensions
   in this specification are the replacement of single values (boolean
   or link-metric) from [OLSRv2] with elements representing multiple
   values (associative maps from a set of metric types to their
   corresponding values).  The following subsections detail these
   extensions.

   Note that, as in [OLSRv2], an implementation is free to organize its
   internal data in any manner it chooses, it needs only to behave as if
   it were organized as described in [OLSRv2] and this specification.

6.1.  Local Attached Network Set

   Each element AL_metric becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

6.2.  Link Sets

   Each element L_in_metric becomes a map[IFACE_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

   Each element L_out_metric becomes a map[IFACE_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

   The elements of L_in_metric MUST be set following the same rules that
   apply to the setting of the single element L_in_metric in [OLSRv2].

6.3.  2-Hop Sets

   Each element N2_in_metric becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

   Each element N2_out_metric becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

6.4.  Neighbor Set

   Each element N_in_metric becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

   Each element N_out_metric becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

   Each element N_routing_mpr becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES ->
   boolean].

   Each element N_mpr_selector becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES ->
   boolean].

   Each element N_advertised becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES ->
   boolean].

6.5.  Router Topology Set

   Each element TR_metric becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

   Note that some values of TR_metric may now take the value
   UNKNOWN_METRIC.  When used to construct a Routing Set, where just the
   corresponding value from this map is used, Router Topology Tuples
   whose corresponding value of TR_metric is UNKNOWN_METRIC are ignored.

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

6.6.  Routable Address Topology Set

   Each element TA_metric becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

   Note that some values of TA_metric may now take the value
   UNKNOWN_METRIC.  When used to construct a Routing Set, where just the
   corresponding value from this map is used, Routable Address Topology
   Tuples whose corresponding value of TA_metric is UNKNOWN_METRIC are
   ignored.

6.7.  Attached Network Set

   Each element AN_metric becomes a map[ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES -> link-
   metric].

   Note that some values of AN_metric may now take the value
   UNKNOWN_METRIC.  When used to construct a Routing Set, where just the
   corresponding value from this map is used, Attached Network Tuples
   whose corresponding value of AN_metric is UNKNOWN_METRIC are ignored.

6.8.  Routing Sets

   There is a separate Routing Set for each link metric type in
   ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES.

7.  TLVs

   This specification makes the following additions and extensions to
   the TLVs defined in [OLSRv2].

7.1.  Message TLVs

   A single new Message TLV is defined in this specification.

7.1.1.  MPR_TYPES TLV

   A new allocation is made for an MPR_TYPES Message TLV.  The presence
   of this TLV is used to indicate that the router supports MT-OLSRv2,
   in the same way that the presence of the MPR_WILLING TLV is used to
   indicate that the router supports OLSRv2, as specified in [OLSRv2].
   For this reason, the MPR_TYPES TLV has been defined with the same
   Type as the MPR_WILLING TLV, but with Type Extension == 1.  (The
   different symbolic name is used for convenience, any reference to a
   MPR_TYPES TLV means to this TLV, with this Type and Type Extension.)

   This TLV may take a value field of any size.  Each octet in its value

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

   field will contain a link metric type.  These octets MAY be in any
   order, except that if there may be any routers in the MANET using not
   implementing the extension described in this specification, then the
   first octet MUST be LINK_METRIC_TYPE.

7.2.  Address Block TLVs

   New Type Extensions are defined for the LINK_METRIC TLV defined in
   [OLSRv2].  Some adjustment may be required to the MPR TLV defined in
   [OLSRv2].  Two options are presented in section Section 7.2.2.1 of
   this version of this specification; the final version of this
   specification will pick one.

7.2.1.  LINK_METRIC TLV

   This is unchanged from the definition in [OLSRv2].  However that
   specification defined a single type extension (link metric type) 0 as
   defined by administrative action.  This specification extends this
   range, it is suggested either to 0-7 or to 0-15.  This specification
   will work with any combination of type extensions both within and
   without that range (assuming that the latter are defined as specified
   in [OLSRv2]).

7.2.2.  MPR TLV

   The value field of this Address Block TLV has the values 1, 2, and 3
   specified in [OLSRv2], where 3 denotes both 1 and 2.
   [TLV-Extensions] redefines this field as a bitfield, where bit 7 (the
   lsb) denotes flooding status, bit 6 denotes routing MPR status, and
   bits 5-0 are unallocated (respecting the semantics of the bits/values
   1, 2 and 3 from [OLSRv2]).  Extending on this, bits 0-6 could be
   interpreted to denote routing MPR status for up to 7 link metric
   types.  What these metric types are will be specified by the value
   field of an MPR_TYPES TLV, in the same order.

   There are however two problems with this approach:

   o  A strict implementation of [OLSRv2] might reject any values other
      than 1, 2, or 3; the update proposed in [TLV-Extensions] resolves
      this, if adopted (and this specification is thus one motivation
      for [TLV-Extensions]).

   o  Restricting the MPR TLV to have single octet values (as specified
      in [OLSRv2], and which a strict implementation of OLSRv2 might
      require) limits the number of link metric types that a router can
      handle to 7.  This might be acceptable as a design choice.
      Alternatively the single value field of an MPR TLV may be allowed
      to be of variable size, of one or more octets.  If adopted, this

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

      modification to [OLSRv2] will be included in [TLV-Extensions].

7.2.2.1.  Options

   The following two options may thus be considered.  Note that a single
   choice is to be made for the final specification.

   1.  An maximum of 7 link metric types used by any router, all carried
       in the MPR TLV with Type Extension 0, which is redefined
       accordingly but retaining a one octet single value length.  This
       requires an OLSRv2 implementation (which does not include MT-
       OLSRv2) to consider only the first two bits of the value octet,
       as per [TLV-Extensions].  If [TLV-Extensions] is adopted, this
       option incurs no requirements on any existing OLSRv2
       implementation.

   2.  An unlimited (up to 255) number of link metric types, all carried
       in the MPR TLV with Type Extension 0, which is redefined
       accordingly, but with a variable single value length.  This
       requires an OLSRv2 implementation (which does not include MT-
       OLSRv2) to:

       *  Consider only the first two bits of the value field, as per
          [TLV-Extensions].  If [TLV-Extensions] is adopted, this option
          incurs no requirements on any existing OLSRv2 implementation.

       *  Accommodate a variable length single value field.

   Note that the adoption of [TLV-Extensions] makes option 1 immediately
   well-defined.  Option 2 is not currently specifically addressed in
   [TLV-Extensions].

8.  HELLO Messages

   The following changes are made to the generation and processing of
   HELLO messages compared to that described in [OLSRv2] by routers that
   implement this extension.

8.1.  HELLO Message Generation

   A generated HELLO message to be sent on an OLSRv2 interface is
   extended by:

   o  Adding an MPR_TYPES TLV.  The value octets will be the link metric
      types in IFACE_METRIC_TYPES.

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

   o  Including LINK_METRIC TLVs that report all values of L_in_metric,
      L_out_metric, N_in_metric and N_out_metric that are not equal to
      UNKNOWN_METRIC, with the TLV Type Extension being the link metric
      type, and otherwise following the rules for such inclusions
      specified in [OLSRv2].

   o  Including MPR TLVs such that for each link metric type in
      IFACE_METRIC_TYPES, and for the choice of flooding MPRs, these
      MUST cover at least one address of each 1-hop symmetric neighbor
      reported in the HELLO message, as described for a single link
      metric type in [OLSRv2].

8.2.  HELLO Message Processing

   On receipt of a HELLO message, a router implementing this extension
   MUST, in addition to the processing described in [OLSRv2]:

   1.  Determine the list of link metric types supported by the sending
       router on the relevant OLSRv2 interface, either from an MPR_TYPES
       TLV or, if not present, the type LINK_METRIC_TYPE supported by a
       router not implementing the extension described in this
       specification.

   2.  For those link metric types supported by both routers, set the
       appropriate L_out_metric, N_in_metric, N_out_metric,
       N_mpr_selector, N_advertised, N2_in_metric and N2_out_metric
       values as described for the single such elements in [OLSRv2].

   3.  For any other metric types supported by the receiving router
       only, set those elements to their default value (UNKNOWN_METRIC
       or false).

9.  TC Messages

   The following changes are made to the generation and processing of TC
   messages compared to that described in [OLSRv2] by routers that
   implement this extension.

9.1.  TC Message Generation

   A generated TC message is extended by:

   o  Including LINK_METRIC TLVs that report all values of N_out_metric
      that are not equal to UNKNOWN_METRIC, with the TLV Type Extension
      being the link metric type, and otherwise following the rules for
      such inclusions specified in [OLSRv2].

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

9.2.  TC Message Processing

   On receipt of a TC message, a router implementing this extension
   MUST, in addition to the processing specified in [OLSRv2]:

   o  Set the appropriate TR_metric, TA_metric and AN_metric elements
      using the rules for setting the single elements of those types
      specified in [OLSRv2].

   o  For any other metric types supported by the receiving router that
      do not have an advertised outgoing neighbor metric of that type,
      set the corresponding elements of TR_metric, TA_metric and
      AN_metric to UNKNOWN_METRIC.

10.  MPR Calculation

   Routing MPRs are calculated for each link metric type in
   ROUTER_METRIC_TYPES.  Links to symmetric 1-hop neighbors via OLSRv2
   interfaces that does not support that link metric type are not
   considered.  The determined status (routing MPR or not routing MPR)
   for each link metric type is recorded in the relevant element of
   N_routing_mpr.

   Each router may make its own decision as to whether or not to use a
   link metric, or link metrics, for flooding MPR calculation, and if so
   which and how.  This decision MUST be made in a manner that ensures
   that flooded messages will reach the same symmetric 2-hop neighbors
   as would be the case for an OLSRv2 implementation, not including the
   extension described in this specification.

   Note that it is possible that a 2-Hop Tuple in the Information Base
   for a given OLSRv2 interface does not support any of the link metric
   types that are in the router's corresponding IFACE_METRIC_TYPES, but
   nevertheless that 2-Hop Tuple MUST be considered when determining
   flooding MPRs.

11.  Routing Set Calculation

   A Routing Set is calculated for each supported link metric type.  The
   calculation may be as for [OLSRv2], except that where an element is
   now represented by a map, the value from the map for the selected
   link metric type is used.  Where this is a link metric of value
   UNKNOWN_METRIC, that protocol Tuple is ignored for the calculation.

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

12.  Management Considerations

   MT-OLSRv2 may require greater management than OLSRv2 without the
   extension described in this specification.  In particular MT-OLSRv2
   requires the following management considerations:

   o  Selecting which link metrics to support on each OLSRv2 interface
      and implementing that decision.  (Different interfaces may have
      different physical and data link layer properties, and this may
      inform the selection of link metrics to support, and their
      values.)

   o  Ensuring that the MANET is sufficiently connected.  Note that if
      there is any possibility that there are any routers not
      implementing the extension described in this specification, then
      the MANET will be connected, to the maximum extent possible, using
      the link metric type LINK_METRIC_TYPE.

   o  Deciding which link metric, and hence which Routing Set to use,
      for received packets, hence how to use the Routing Sets to
      configure the network layer (IP).  An obvious approach is to map
      each DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) [RFC2474] to a single link metric.
      (This may be a many to one mapping.)

   o  Note that there could be cases where a router, not implementing
      the extension described in this specification, is the source or
      destination of an IP packet that is mapped to a link metric that
      is not the link metric LINK_METRIC_TYPE used by that router.  If
      that router is the source, then routing may work if the first
      Multi-Topology OLSRv2 router to receive the packet supports the
      appropriate link metric type.  At worst the packet will be
      dropped, it will not loop.  If the router, not implementing the
      extension described in this specification, is the destination,
      then the packet will never reach its destination, as the source
      will not have a suitable routing table entry for the destination.
      Network management may be required to ensure that the MANET still
      functions in these cases.

13.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.

14.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

15.  Acknowledgments

   TBD.

16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [OLSRv2]   Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2",
              work in progress draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19, March 2013.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5444]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih,
              "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444,
              February 2009.

   [RFC6130]  Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc
              Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
              RFC 6130, April 2011.

16.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2501]  Macker, J. and S. Corson, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
              (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
              Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.

   [RFC3626]  Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "The Optimized Link State
              Routing Protocol", RFC 3626, October 2003.

   [TLV-Extensions]
              Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing
              Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood
              Disovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs", work in
              progress draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-tlv-extensions-00,
              July 2013.

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            Multi-Topology OLSRv2                July 2013

Authors' Addresses

   Christopher Dearlove
   BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
   West Hanningfield Road
   Great Baddow, Chelmsford
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44 1245 242194
   Email: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
   URI:   http://www.baesystems.com/

   Thomas Heide Clausen
   LIX, Ecole Polytechnique

   Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
   Email: T.Clausen@computer.org
   URI:   http://www.ThomasClausen.org/

Dearlove & Clausen      Expires January 13, 2014               [Page 14]