RFC 6687: Performance Evaluation of the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document presents a performance evaluation of the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) for a small outdoor deployment of sensor nodes and for a large-scale smart meter network. Detailed simulations are carried out to produce several routing performance metrics using these real-life deployment scenarios. Please refer to the PDF version of this document, which includes several plots for the performance metrics not shown in the plain-text version. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6687
- Published
- October 2012
- Authors
- J. Tripathi; J. de Oliveira; JP. Vasseur
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- INDEPENDENT
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 26
- 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 6997Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low-Power and Lossy NetworksCurrent
August 2013
- RFC 6998A Mechanism to Measure the Routing Metrics along a Point-to-Point Route in a Low-Power and Lossy NetworkCurrent
August 2013
- RFC 7416A Security Threat Analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPLs)Current
January 2015
- RFC 5826Home Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy NetworksCurrent
April 2010
- RFC 7731Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)Current
February 2016
- RFC 5548Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy NetworksCurrent
May 2009
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?