Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Dearlove
Request for Comments: 7187 BAE Systems ATC
Updates: 7181 T. Clausen
Category: Standards Track LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
ISSN: 2070-1721 April 2014
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Dearlove
Request for Comments: 7187 BAE Systems ATC
Updates: 7181 T. Clausen
Category: Standards Track LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
ISSN: 2070-1721 April 2014
Routing Multipoint Relay Optimization for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)
优化链路状态路由协议版本2（OLSRv2）的路由多点中继优化
Abstract
摘要
This specification updates the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) with an optimization to improve the selection of routing multipoint relays. The optimization retains full interoperability between implementations of OLSRv2 with and without this optimization.
本规范对优化链路状态路由协议版本2（OLSRv2）进行了更新，以改进路由多点中继的选择。该优化保留了OLSRv2实现之间的完全互操作性，无论有无此优化。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
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 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
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/rfc7187.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7187.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2014 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Routing MPR Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Routing MPR Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 [RFC7181] is a proactive link state routing protocol designed for use in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) [RFC2501]. This document improves one area of the OLSRv2 specification.
优化链路状态路由协议版本2[RFC7181]是一种主动链路状态路由协议，设计用于移动自组网（MANET）[RFC2501]。本文档改进了OLSRv2规范的一个方面。
One improvement included in OLSRv2, compared to its predecessor described in [RFC3626], is the use of link metrics, rather than minimum-hop routing. A rationale for how link metrics were included in OLSRv2 is documented in [RFC7185]. However, one aspect of the use of link metrics described in [RFC7185], the removal of some unnecessarily selected routing multipoint relays (MPRs), was not included in [RFC7181]. This specification updates OLSRv2 to include this optimization.
与[RFC3626]中描述的前身相比，OLSRv2中包括的一个改进是使用链路度量，而不是最小跳数路由。[RFC7185]中记录了链接度量如何包含在OLSRv2中的基本原理。然而，[RFC7185]中描述的链路度量使用的一个方面，即删除一些不必要选择的路由多点中继（MPR），并未包含在[RFC7181]中。本规范更新了OLSRv2以包含此优化。
Note that this optimization does not impact interoperability: implementations that do and do not implement this optimization will interoperate seamlessly.
请注意，此优化不会影响互操作性：执行和未执行此优化的实现将无缝地进行互操作。
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].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“不建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中的说明进行解释。
Additionally, this document uses the terminology of [RFC7181].
此外，本文件使用了[RFC7181]的术语。
This specification updates [RFC7181]. As such, it is applicable to all implementations of this protocol. The optimization presented in this specification is simply permissive; it allows an additional optimization, and there is no requirement for any implementation to
本规范更新了[RFC7181]。因此，它适用于本协议的所有实现。本规范中提出的优化是完全允许的；它允许额外的优化，并且不需要任何实现
include it. However, inclusion of this optimization is advised; it can, in some cases, create smaller and fewer messages, without ever having the opposite effect.
包括它。但是，建议将此优化包括在内；在某些情况下，它可以创建越来越小的消息，而不会产生相反的效果。
[RFC7181] defines the properties for the selection of routing MPRs from among a router's symmetric 1-hop neighbors. The properties are
[RFC7181]定义从路由器的对称1跳邻居中选择路由MPR的属性。属性是
o the selected MPRs must consist of a set of symmetric 1-hop neighbors that cover all the symmetric 2-hop neighbors, and
o 所选MPR必须包含一组对称1跳邻居，覆盖所有对称2跳邻居，以及
o the selected MPRs must do so retaining a minimum distance route (1-hop, if present, or 2-hop) to each symmetric 2-hop neighbor.
o 所选MPR必须保持到每个对称2跳邻居的最小距离路由（1跳，如果存在，或2跳）。
The discussion in the latter part of Section 6.2 of [RFC7185] indicates that this requirement is overly prescriptive for routing MPR selection. The update to [RFC7181] described in this specification permits a router to use the described optimization, while still being considered compliant with OLSRv2.
[RFC7185]第6.2节后半部分的讨论表明，该要求对于路由MPR选择过于规范。本规范中所述的[RFC7181]更新允许路由器使用所述优化，同时仍被视为符合OLSRv2。
Note that whether or not a router is considered compliant, a router that implements the optimization described in this specification will interoperate successfully with routers that are not implementing this optimization.
请注意，无论路由器是否被视为兼容，实现本规范中所述优化的路由器都将与未实现此优化的路由器成功互操作。
A set of routing MPRs created as specified in [RFC7181] MAY be optimized in the following manner. Note that this uses the notation of Section 18.2 of [RFC7181]:
按照[RFC7181]中的规定创建的一组路由MPR可按以下方式进行优化。注意，这使用了[RFC7181]第18.2节的符号：
1. If there is a sequence x_0, ..., x_n of elements of N1 such that:
1. 如果存在N1元素的序列x_0，…，x_n，那么：
* x_0 is a routing MPR,
* x_0是一个路由MPR，
* x_1, ... , x_n have corresponding elements y_1, ..., y_n of N2, and
* x_1，x_n具有N2的相应元素y_1，…，y_n，和
* d1(x_0) + d2(x_0,y_1) + ... + d2(x_m-1,y_m) < d1(x_m) for m = 1, ... , n,
* d1（x_0）+d2（x_0，y_1）+…+d2（x_m-1，y_m）<d1（x_m），对于m=1，N
then x_1 to x_n may be removed from the set of routing MPRs, if selected.
如果选择，则可以从路由mpr集合中移除x_1到x_n。
Note that "corresponding elements" in N1 and N2 means that these elements represent the same router. All of this information is available from information gathered by NHDP [RFC6130].
请注意，N1和N2中的“对应元素”表示这些元素代表相同的路由器。所有这些信息可从NHDP[RFC6130]收集的信息中获得。
The update to OLSRv2 [RFC7181] does not introduce any new protocol signals, nor does it change the processing of any received protocol signals.
对OLSRv2[RFC7181]的更新不会引入任何新的协议信号，也不会改变任何接收到的协议信号的处理。
This update to OLSRv2 [RFC7181] permits an implementation that is compliant with OLSRv2 to (potentially) eliminate some unneeded routers from the routing MPR sets generated as described in [RFC7181], which also eliminates the need to include the corresponding information in generated Topology Control (TC) messages. Because this information is not used when included, this update to OLSRv2 [RFC7181] does not present any additional security considerations, beyond those described in [RFC7181].
对OLSRv2[RFC7181]的此更新允许符合OLSRv2的实现（可能）从[RFC7181]中所述生成的路由MPR集中消除一些不需要的路由器，这也消除了在生成的拓扑控制（TC）消息中包含相应信息的需要。由于在包含此信息时未使用此信息，因此对OLSRv2[RFC7181]的此更新不提供任何额外的安全注意事项，超出了[RFC7181]中所述的安全注意事项。
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Philippe Jacquet (Alcatel-Lucent) for intense technical discussions and comments.
作者要感谢Philippe Jacquet（阿尔卡特朗讯公司）的热烈技术讨论和评论。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", RFC 6130, April 2011.
[RFC6130]Clausen，T.，Dean，J.，和C.Dearlove，“移动自组织网络（MANET）邻域发现协议（NHDP）”，RFC6130，2011年4月。
[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", RFC 7181, April 2014.
[RFC7181]Clausen，T.，Dearlove，C.，Jacquet，P.，和U.Herberg，“优化链路状态路由协议版本2”，RFC 7181，2014年4月。
[RFC2501] Macker, J. and S. Corson, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.
[RFC2501]Macker，J.和S.Corson，“移动自组网（MANET）：路由协议性能问题和评估考虑”，RFC 2501，1999年1月。
[RFC3626] Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol", RFC 3626, October 2003.
[RFC3626]Clausen，T.和P.Jacquet，“优化链路状态路由协议”，RFC 3626，2003年10月。
[RFC7185] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and P. Jacquet, "Rationale for the Use of Link Metrics in the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7185, April 2014.
[RFC7185]Clausen，T.，Dearlove，C.，和P.Jacquet，“优化链路状态路由协议版本2（OLSRv2）中使用链路度量的基本原理”，RFC 7185，2014年4月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Christopher Dearlove BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road Great Baddow, Chelmsford United Kingdom
克里斯托弗·迪尔洛夫英国切姆斯福德大巴德西汉宁菲尔德路BAE系统先进技术中心
Phone: +44 1245 242194
EMail: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
URI: http://www.baesystems.com/
Phone: +44 1245 242194
EMail: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
URI: http://www.baesystems.com/
Thomas Heide Clausen LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
托马斯·海德·克劳森·利克斯，理工学院
Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/
Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/