RFC 6719: The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) constructs routes by using Objective Functions that optimize or constrain the routes it selects and uses. This specification describes the Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF), an Objective Function that selects routes that minimize a metric, while using hysteresis to reduce churn in response to small metric changes. MRHOF works with additive metrics along a route, and the metrics it uses are determined by the metrics that the RPL Destination Information Object (DIO) messages advertise. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6719
- Published
- September 2012
- Authors
- O. Gnawali; P. Levis
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 13
- 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 6552Objective Function Zero for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)Current
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 7731Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)Current
February 2016
- RFC 7733Applicability Statement: The Use of the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Protocol Suite in Home Automation and Building ControlCurrent
February 2016
- RFC 5673Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy NetworksCurrent
October 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?