Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment
draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment
6lo T. Watteyne, Ed.
Internet-Draft Analog Devices
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert, Ed.
Expires: 24 September 2020 Cisco Systems
C. Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
23 March 2020
On Forwarding 6LoWPAN Fragments over a Multihop IPv6 Network
draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-15
Abstract
This document provides generic rules to enable the forwarding of
6LoWPAN fragment over a route-over network. Forwarding fragments can
improve both the end-to-end latency and reliability, and reduce the
buffer requirements in intermediate nodes; it may be implemented
using RFC 4944 and virtual reassembly buffers.
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 24 September 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 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
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
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
2.1. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Referenced Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of 6LoWPAN Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Limitations of Per-Hop Fragmentation and Reassembly . . . . . 6
4.1. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Memory Management and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Forwarding Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) Implementation . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The original 6LoWPAN fragmentation is defined in [RFC4944] for use
over a single Layer 3 hop, though possibly multiple Layer 2 hops in a
mesh-under network, and was not modified by the [RFC6282] update.
6LoWPAN operations including fragmentation depend on a Link-Layer
security that prevents any rogue access to the network.
In a route-over 6LoWPAN network, an IP packet is expected to be
reassembled at each intermediate hop, uncompressed, pushed to Layer 3
to be routed, and then compressed and fragmented again. This draft
introduces an alternate approach called 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding
(6FF) whereby an intermediate node forwards a fragment (or the bulk
thereof, MTU permitting) without reassembling if the next hop is a
similar 6LoWPAN link. The routing decision is made on the first
fragment of the datagram, which has the IPv6 routing information.
The first fragment is forwarded immediately and a state is stored to
enable forwarding the next fragments along the same path.
Done right, 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding techniques lead to more
streamlined operations, less buffer bloat and lower latency. But it
may be wasteful when fragments are missing, leading to locked
resources and low throughput, and it may be misused to the point that
the end-to-end latency of one packet falls behind that of per-hop
reassembly.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
This specification provides a generic overview of 6FF, discusses
advantages and caveats, and introduces a particular 6LoWPAN Fragment
Forwarding technique called Virtual Reassembly Buffer that can be
used while retaining the message formats defined in [RFC4944]. Basic
recommendations such as the insertion of an inter-frame gap between
fragments are provided to avoid the most typical caveats.
2. Terminology
2.1. BCP 14
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Referenced Work
Past experience with fragmentation, e.g., as described in "IPv4
Reassembly Errors at High Data Rates" [RFC4963] and references
therein, has shown that mis-associated or lost fragments can lead to
poor network behavior and, occasionally, trouble at the application
layer. That experience led to the definition of the "Path MTU
discovery" [RFC8201] (PMTUD) protocol that limits fragmentation over
the Internet.
"IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile" [FRAG-ILE] discusses security
threats that are linked to using IP fragmentation. The 6LoWPAN
fragmentation takes place underneath the IP Layer, but some issues
described there may still apply to 6LoWPAN fragments (as discussed in
further details in Section 7).
Readers are expected to be familiar with all the terms and concepts
that are discussed in "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area
Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and
Goals" [RFC4919] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks" [RFC4944].
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Architecture" [RFC3031] says
that with MPLS, 'packets are "labeled" before they are forwarded.'
It goes on to say, "At subsequent hops, there is no further analysis
of the packet's network layer header. Rather, the label is used as
an index into a table which specifies the next hop, and a new label".
The MPLS technique is leveraged in the present specification to
forward fragments that actually do not have a network layer header,
since the fragmentation occurs below IP.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
2.3. New Terms
This specification uses the following terms:
6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding endpoints: The 6FF endpoints are the
first and last nodes in an unbroken string of 6LoWPAN Fragment
Forwarding nodes. They are also the only points where the
fragmentation and reassembly operations take place.
Compressed Form: This specification uses the generic term Compressed
Form to refer to the format of a datagram after the action of
[RFC6282] and possibly [RFC8138] for RPL [RFC6550] artifacts.
Datagram_Size: The size of the datagram in its Compressed Form
before it is fragmented.
Datagram_Tag: An identifier of a datagram that is locally unique to
the Layer 2 sender. Associated with the Link-Layer address of the
sender, this becomes a globally unique identifier for the datagram
within the duration of its transmission.
Fragment_Offset: The offset of a fragment of a datagram in its
Compressed Form.
3. Overview of 6LoWPAN Fragmentation
We use Figure 1 to illustrate 6LoWPAN fragmentation. We assume node
A forwards a packet to node B, possibly as part of a multi-hop route
between 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding endpoints which may be neither A
nor B, though 6LoWPAN may compress the IP header better when they are
both the 6FF and the 6LoWPAN compression endpoints.
+---+ +---+
... ---| A |-------------------->| B |--- ...
+---+ +---+
# (frag. 5)
123456789 123456789
+---------+ +---------+
| # ###| |### # |
+---------+ +---------+
outgoing incoming
fragmentation reassembly
buffer buffer
Figure 1: Fragmentation at node A, reassembly at node B.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
Typically, Node A starts with an uncompressed packet and compacts the
IPv6 packet using the header compression mechanism defined in
[RFC6282]. If the resulting 6LoWPAN packet does not fit into a
single Link-Layer frame, node A's 6LoWPAN sublayer cuts it into
multiple 6LoWPAN fragments, which it transmits as separate Link-Layer
frames to node B. Node B's 6LoWPAN sublayer reassembles these
fragments, inflates the compressed header fields back to the original
IPv6 header, and hands over the full IPv6 packet to its IPv6 layer.
In Figure 1, a packet forwarded by node A to node B is cut into nine
fragments, numbered 1 to 9 as follows:
* Each fragment is represented by the '#' symbol.
* Node A has sent fragments 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 to node B.
* Node B has received fragments 1, 2, 3, 6 from node A.
* Fragment 5 is still being transmitted at the link layer from node
A to node B.
The reassembly buffer for 6LoWPAN is indexed in node B by:
* a unique Identifier of Node A (e.g., Node A's Link-Layer address)
* the Datagram_Tag chosen by node A for this fragmented datagram
Because it may be hard for node B to correlate all possible Link-
Layer addresses that node A may use (e.g., short vs. long addresses),
node A must use the same Link-Layer address to send all the fragments
of the same datagram to node B.
Conceptually, the reassembly buffer in node B contains:
* a Datagram_Tag as received in the incoming fragments, associated
to the interface and the Link-Layer address of node A for which
the received Datagram_Tag is unique,
* the actual packet data from the fragments received so far, in a
form that makes it possible to detect when the whole packet has
been received and can be processed or forwarded,
* a state indicating the fragments already received,
* a Datagram_Size,
* a timer that allows discarding a partially reassembled packet
after some timeout.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
A fragmentation header is added to each fragment; it indicates what
portion of the packet that fragment corresponds to. Section 5.3 of
[RFC4944] defines the format of the header for the first and
subsequent fragments. All fragments are tagged with a 16-bit
"Datagram_Tag", used to identify which packet each fragment belongs
to. Each datagram can be uniquely identified by the sender Link-
Layer addresses of the frame that carries it and the Datagram_Tag
that the sender allocated for this datagram. [RFC4944] also mandates
that the first fragment is sent first and with a particular format
that is different than that of the next fragments. Each fragment but
the first one can be identified within its datagram by the datagram-
offset.
Node B's typical behavior, per [RFC4944], is as follows. Upon
receiving a fragment from node A with a Datagram_Tag previously
unseen from node A, node B allocates a buffer large enough to hold
the entire packet. The length of the packet is indicated in each
fragment (the Datagram_Size field), so node B can allocate the buffer
even if the fragment it receives first is not the first fragment. As
fragments come in, node B fills the buffer. When all fragments have
been received, node B inflates the compressed header fields into an
IPv6 header, and hands the resulting IPv6 packet to the IPv6 layer
which performs the route lookup. This behavior typically results in
per-hop fragmentation and reassembly. That is, the packet is fully
reassembled, then (re)fragmented, at every hop.
4. Limitations of Per-Hop Fragmentation and Reassembly
There are at least 2 limitations to doing per-hop fragmentation and
reassembly. See [ARTICLE] for detailed simulation results on both
limitations.
4.1. Latency
When reassembling, a node needs to wait for all the fragments to be
received before being able to reform the IPv6 packet, and possibly
forward it to the next hop. This repeats at every hop.
This may result in increased end-to-end latency compared to a case
where each fragment is forwarded without per-hop reassembly.
4.2. Memory Management and Reliability
Constrained nodes have limited memory. Assuming a reassembly buffer
for a 6LoWPAN MTU of 1280 bytes as defined in section 4 of [RFC4944],
typical nodes only have enough memory for 1-3 reassembly buffers.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
To illustrate this we use the topology from Figure 2, where nodes A,
B, C and D all send packets through node E. We further assume that
node E's memory can only hold 3 reassembly buffers.
+---+ +---+
... --->| A |------>| B |
+---+ +---+\
\
+---+ +---+
| E |--->| F | ...
+---+ +---+
/
/
+---+ +---+
... --->| C |------>| D |
+---+ +---+
Figure 2: Illustrating the Memory Management Issue.
When nodes A, B and C concurrently send fragmented packets, all 3
reassembly buffers in node E are occupied. If, at that moment, node
D also sends a fragmented packet, node E has no option but to drop
one of the packets, lowering end-to-end reliability.
5. Forwarding Fragments
A 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding technique makes the routing decision on
the first fragment, which is always the one with the IPv6 address of
the destination. Upon receiving a first fragment, a forwarding node
(e.g. node B in a A->B->C sequence) that does fragment forwarding
MUST attempt to create a state and forward the fragment. This is an
atomic operation, and if the first fragment cannot be forwarded then
the state MUST be removed.
Since the Datagram_Tag is uniquely associated to the source Link-
Layer address of the fragment, the forwarding node MUST assign a new
Datagram_Tag from its own namespace for the next hop and rewrite the
fragment header of each fragment with that Datagram_Tag.
When a forwarding node receives a fragment other than a first
fragment, it MUST look up state based on the source Link-Layer
address and the Datagram_Tag in the received fragment. If no such
state is found, the fragment MUST be dropped; otherwise the fragment
MUST be forwarded using the information in the state found.
Compared to Section 3, the conceptual reassembly buffer in node B now
contains, assuming that node B is neither the source nor the final
destination:
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
* a Datagram_Tag as received in the incoming fragments, associated
to the interface and the Link-Layer address of node A for which
the received Datagram_Tag is unique
* the Link-Layer address that node B uses as source to forward the
fragments
* the interface and the Link-Layer address of the next hop C that is
resolved on the first fragment
* a Datagram_Tag that node B uniquely allocated for this datagram
and that is used when forwarding the fragments of the datagram
* a buffer for the remainder of a previous fragment left to be sent,
* a timer that allows discarding the stale FF state after some
timeout. The duration of the timer should be longer than that
which covers the reassembly at the receiving end point.
A node that has not received the first fragment cannot forward the
next fragments. This means that if node B receives a fragment, node
A was in possession of the first fragment at some point. To keep the
operation simple and consistent with [RFC4944], the first fragment
MUST always be sent first. When that is done, if node B receives a
fragment that is not the first and for which it has no state, then
node B treats it as an error and refrains from creating a state or
attempting to forward. This also means that node A should perform
all its possible retries on the first fragment before it attempts to
send the next fragments, and that it should abort the datagram and
release its state if it fails to send the first fragment.
Fragment forwarding obviates some of the benefits of the 6LoWPAN
header compression [RFC6282] in intermediate hops. In return, the
memory used to store the packet is distributed along the path, which
limits the buffer bloat effect. Multiple fragments may progress
simultaneously along the network as long as they do not interfere.
An associated caveat is that on a half duplex radio, if node A sends
the next fragment at the same time as node B forwards the previous
fragment to a node C down the path then node B will miss it. If node
C forwards the previous fragment to a node D at the same time and on
the same frequency as node A sends the next fragment to node B, this
may result in a hidden terminal problem. In that case, the
transmission from C interferes at node B with that from A unbeknownst
of node A. Consecutive fragments of a same datagram MUST be
separated with an inter-frame gap that allows one fragment to
progress beyond the next hop and beyond the interference domain
before the next shows up. This can be achieved by interleaving
packets or fragments sent via different next-hop routers.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
6. Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) Implementation
The Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) [LWIG-VRB] is a particular
incarnation of a 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding that can be implemented
without a change to [RFC4944].
VRB overcomes the limitations listed in Section 4. Nodes do not wait
for the last fragment before forwarding, reducing end-to-end latency.
Similarly, the memory footprint of VRB is just the VRB table,
reducing the packet drop probability significantly.
There are other caveats, however:
Non-zero Packet Drop Probability: The abstract data in a VRB table
entry contains at a minimum the Link-Layer address of the
predecessor and that of the successor, the Datagram_Tag used by
the predecessor and the local Datagram_Tag that this node will
swap with it. The VRB may need to store a few octets from the
last fragment that may not have fit within MTU and that will be
prepended to the next fragment. This yields a small footprint
that is 2 orders of magnitude smaller compared to needing a
1280-byte reassembly buffer for each packet. Yet, the size of the
VRB table necessarily remains finite. In the extreme case where a
node is required to concurrently forward more packets that it has
entries in its VRB table, packets are dropped.
No Fragment Recovery: There is no mechanism in VRB for the node that
reassembles a packet to request a single missing fragment.
Dropping a fragment requires the whole packet to be resent. This
causes unnecessary traffic, as fragments are forwarded even when
the destination node can never construct the original IPv6 packet.
No Per-Fragment Routing: All subsequent fragments follow the same
sequence of hops from the source to the destination node as the
first fragment, because the IP header is required in order to
route the fragment and is only present in the first fragment. A
side effect is that the first fragment must always be forwarded
first.
The severity and occurrence of these caveats depends on the Link-
Layer used. Whether they are acceptable depends entirely on the
requirements the application places on the network.
If the caveats are present and not acceptable for the application,
alternative specifications may define new protocols to overcome them.
One example is [FRAG-RECOV] which specifies a 6LoWPAN Fragment
Forwarding technique that allows the end-to-end fragment recovery
between the 6LoWPAN FF endpoints.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
7. Security Considerations
An attacker can perform a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack on a node
implementing VRB by generating a large number of bogus "fragment 1"
fragments without sending subsequent fragments. This causes the VRB
table to fill up. Note that the VRB does not need to remember the
full datagram as received so far but only possibly a few octets from
the last fragment that could not fit in it. It is expected that an
implementation protects itself to keep the number of VRBs within
capacity, and that old VRBs are protected by a timer of a reasonable
duration for the technology and destroyed upon timeout.
Secure joining and the Link-Layer security that it sets up protects
against those attacks from network outsiders.
"IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile" [FRAG-ILE] discusses security
threats and other caveats that are linked to using IP fragmentation.
The 6LoWPAN fragmentation takes place underneath the IP Layer, but
some issues described there may still apply to 6LoWPAN fragments.
* Overlapping fragment attacks are possible with 6LoWPAN fragments
but there is no known firewall operation that would work on
6LoWPAN fragments at the time of this writing, so the exposure is
limited. An implementation of a firewall SHOULD NOT forward
fragments but instead should recompose the IP packet, check it in
the u ncompressed form, and then forward it again as fragments if
necessary. Overlapping fragments are acceptable as long as they
contain the same payload. The firewall MUST drop the whole packet
if overlapping fragments are encountered that result in different
data at the same offset.
* Resource exhaustion attacks are certainly possible and a sensitive
issue in a constrained network. An attacker can perform a Denial-
of-Service (DoS) attack on a node implementing VRB by generating a
large number of bogus first fragments without sending subsequent
fragments. This causes the VRB table to fill up. When hop-by-hop
reassembly is used, the same attack can be more damaging if the
node allocates a full Datagram_Size for each bogus first fragment.
With the VRB, the attack can be performed remotely on all nodes
along a path, but each node suffers a lesser hit. This is because
the VRB does not need to remember the full datagram as received so
far but only possibly a few octets from the last fragment that
could not fit in it. An implementation MUST protect itself to
keep the number of VRBs within capacity, and ensure that old VRBs
are protected by a timer of a reasonable duration for the
technology and destroyed upon timeout.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
* Attacks based on predictable fragment identification values are
also possible but can be avoided. The Datagram_Tag SHOULD be
assigned pseudo-randomly in order to defeat such attacks. A
larger size of the Datagram_Tag makes the guessing more difficult
and reduces the chances of an accidental reuse while the original
packet is still in flight, at the expense of more space in each
frame. Attacks based on predictable fragment identification
values are also possible but can be avoided. The Datagram_Tag
SHOULD be assigned pseudo-randomly in order to reduce the risk of
such attacks. Nonetheless, some level of risk remains that an
attacker able to authenticate to and send traffic on the network
can guess a valid Datagram_Tag value, since there are only a
limited number of possible values.
* Evasion of Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS) leverages
ambiguity in the reassembly of the fragment. This attack makes
little sense in the context of this specification since the
fragmentation happens within the LLN, meaning that the intruder
should already be inside to perform the attack. NDIS systems
would probably not be installed within the LLN either, but rather
at a boittleneck at the exterior edge of the network.
8. IANA Considerations
No requests to IANA are made by this document.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Carles Gomez Montenegro, Yasuyuki
Tanaka, Ines Robles and Dave Thaler for their in-depth review of this
document and improvement suggestions. Also many thanks to Georgios
Papadopoulos and Dominique Barthel for their own reviews, and to
Roman Danyliw, Barry Leiba, Murray Kucherawy, Derrell Piper, Sarah
Banks, Joerg Ott, Francesca Palombini, Mirja Kuhlewind, Eric Vyncke,
and especially Benjamin Kaduk for their constructive reviews through
the IETF last call and IESG process.
10. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
11. Informative References
[RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4963, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4963>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[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>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[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>.
[FRAG-ILE] Bonica, R., Baker, F., Huston, G., Hinden, R., Troan, O.,
and F. Gont, "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-intarea-frag-
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
fragile-17, 30 September 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-
fragile-17>.
[LWIG-VRB] Bormann, C. and T. Watteyne, "Virtual reassembly buffers
in 6LoWPAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly-02, 9 March 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-
virtual-reassembly-02>.
[FRAG-RECOV]
Thubert, P., "6LoWPAN Selective Fragment Recovery", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-
recovery-20, 20 March 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-20>.
[ARTICLE] Tanaka, Y., Minet, P., and T. Watteyne, "6LoWPAN Fragment
Forwarding", IEEE Communications Standards Magazine ,
2019.
Authors' Addresses
Thomas Watteyne (editor)
Analog Devices
32990 Alvarado-Niles Road, Suite 910
Union City, CA 94587
United States of America
Email: thomas.watteyne@analog.com
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 Mougins - Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft fragment forwarding March 2020
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Watteyne, et al. Expires 24 September 2020 [Page 14]
