RFC 5673: Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The wide deployment of lower-cost wireless devices will significantly improve the productivity and safety of industrial plants while increasing the efficiency of plant workers by extending the information set available about the plant operations. The aim of this document is to analyze the functional requirements for a routing protocol used in industrial Low-power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) of field devices. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5673
- Published
- October 2009
- Authors
- K. Pister; P. Thubert; S. Dwars; T. Phinney
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 27
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6551Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in Low-Power and Lossy NetworksCurrent
March 2012
- RFC 6719The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective FunctionCurrent
September 2012
- RFC 7416A Security Threat Analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPLs)Current
January 2015
- RFC 7731Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)Current
February 2016
- RFC 6282Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based NetworksUpdated
September 2011
- RFC 6553The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane DatagramsUpdated
March 2012
- RFC 6554An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)Current
March 2012
- RFC 6606Problem Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) RoutingCurrent
May 2012
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?