RFC 7416: A Security Threat Analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPLs)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document presents a security threat analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPLs). The development builds upon previous work on routing security and adapts the assessments to the issues and constraints specific to low-power and lossy networks. A systematic approach is used in defining and evaluating the security threats. Applicable countermeasures are application specific and are addressed in relevant applicability statements.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7416
- Published
- January 2015
- Authors
- T. Tsao; R. Alexander; M. Dohler; V. Daza; A. Lozano; M. Richardson
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 40
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7731Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)Current
February 2016
- RFC 6551Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in Low-Power and Lossy NetworksCurrent
March 2012
- RFC 7474Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key ManagementCurrent
April 2015
- RFC 7353Security Requirements for BGP Path ValidationCurrent
August 2014
- RFC 7183Integrity Protection for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) and Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)Current
April 2014
- RFC 7182Integrity Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)Current
April 2014
- RFC 7128Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Router Implementation ReportCurrent
February 2014
- RFC 6998A Mechanism to Measure the Routing Metrics along a Point-to-Point Route in a Low-Power and Lossy NetworkCurrent
August 2013
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?