<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-22">
   <front>
      <title>When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6</title>
      <author initials="I." surname="Robles" fullname="Ines Robles">
         <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="M." surname="Richardson" fullname="Michael Richardson">
         <organization>SSW</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="P." surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert">
         <organization>Cisco</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="March" day="1" year="2018" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power
   and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power
   and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing.  The document
   enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
   encapsulation is required.  This analysis provides the basis on which
   to design efficient compression of these headers.  This document
   updates RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type.
   Additionally, this document updates RFC 6550 to indicate about this
   change and updates RFC8138 as well to consider the new Option Type
   when RPL Option is decompressed.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-22" />
   
</reference>
