Last Modified: 2005-02-01
|Done||Post as an informational Internet-Drafts a discussion of mobile ad-hoc networking and issues.|
|Done||Agenda bashing, discussion of charter and of mobile ad hoc networking draft.|
|Done||Discuss proposed protocols and issues. Redefine charter.|
|Done||Publish Informational RFC on manet design considerations|
|Done||Review the WG Charter and update|
|Done||Submit AODV specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC|
|Done||Develop I-D for potential common manet encapsulation protocol approach|
|Done||Submit initial I-D(s) of candidate proposed routing protocols and design frameworks|
|Done||Promote implementation, revision, and testing of initial proposed I-D(s)|
|Done||Explore basic performance and implementation issues of initial approaches|
|Done||Explore proposed proactive protocol design commonalities|
|Done||Submit DSR specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC|
|Done||Submit OLSR specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC|
|Done||Submit TBRPF specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC|
|Done||Develop a further focused problem statement and address an approach for a common engineering work effort|
|Done||Reevaluate the WG's potential based on the problem statement consensus|
|Mar 05||Submit initial ID of RMP for WG review|
|Mar 05||Submit initial ID of PMP for WG review|
|Mar 05||Submit inital ID of generalized MANET flooding approach|
|Jun 05||Revise WG documents and review|
|Nov 05||Document initial implementation progress and experience Revise documents based upon implementation experience|
|Feb 06||Submit RMP specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard|
|Feb 06||Submit PMP specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard|
|Feb 06||Submit MANET flooding specification to IESG for publication as Experimental Standard|
|Mar 06||Review and update milestones|
|RFC2501||I||Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations|
|RFC3561||E||Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing|
|RFC3626||E||Optimized Link State Routing Protocol|
|RFC3684||E||Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF)|
IETF 62 MANET WG Minutes
Thursday March 10th 9am - 11:30 CST 2005
Instructions to find the mp3 audio archive of the meeting are
available at http://www.ietf.org/audio//
WG Chairs Present - Ian Chakeres and Joe Macker
Scribe Krishna Ramachandran
Minutes are paraphrased.
Joe Macker (JM) - MANET Charter Update and Status - see presentation
Charlie Perkins (CP) - Is the focus of the MANET WG shifting away from standalone MANET?
JM - No, but we want to insure that the protocols are designed to connect to the Internet.
Gabriel Montenegro (GM) - Perhaps we should have someone from OPs WG come in to give MANET advice about management of the MANET routing protocols.
Pedro Ruiz (PR) - There are a number of addressing issues related to MANET gateway operation, given the hierarchical organized Internet and the flat MANET.
Samita Chakrabati (SC) - Will the MANET protocols be IPv4 and IPv6 compatible?
JM - We would prefer each protocol to handle IPv4 and IPv6 operation in the same document.
Ian Chakeres (IC) - DYMO Update - see presentation
Several comments about MANETcast address. In summary, 255.255.255.255 or ff02::X addresses are not the address that should be used to transmit control messages to all MANET nodes. A new multicast address should be allocated from IANA.
IC - I will look into getting a multicast address for MANETcast purpose.
Dave Johnson (DJ) - If path accumulation is not required in DYMO its utility is much smaller. Since you no longer know the whole path.
IC - We do not want to prohibit use in networks that require small control messages.
GM - In terms of performance what is the difference between full and partial path accumulation?
Krishna Ramachandran (KR) - Metrics are very important. MANET should focus on including routing metrics in the routing protocol.
DJ - Several people have added additional metrics to the reactive protocols.
IC - Our hope is that by being easily extend able DYMO will allow people to add additional routing metrics in the future.
Several comments about RATE_LIMIT on DYMO packets. It was agreed a more complex method of limiting traffic (such as an exponential backoff) might be beneficial.
Thomas Clausen - Proactive MANET Routing Protocol - see presentation
JM - Link local addresses are useful for signaling.
TC - True, but they are not useful for creating routes.
CP - Efficiency is extremely important and the many tradeoffs make it hard to clear we should not be afraid of adding more complexity if we can achieve more efficiency.
Comment - If there are some modular items (such as data structures) that can be used by both DYMO and PMRP they should be used by both.
Discussion - Should we look at convergence of reactive and proactive? At this time we are focused on keeping them separate, but any common mechanisms that are compatible would make a future convergence easier..
Joe Macker - Simplified Multicast Forwarding - see presentation
DJ - Modifying the ID field may be difficult on some OS, such as FreeBSD. Because FreeBSD randomizes the ID field to be more secure.
JM - For SMF we need some identifying feature to perform duplicate detection.
Singh Shubhranshu - MANET AUTOCONF BOF - see presentation
TC - The BOF was a success, since it showed there is significant interested in the topic.
Thomas Clausen - OLSR 2nd Interop & Workshop - see presentation
Joe Macker - OSPF-MANET Update - see presentation
Dave Johnson - Plug for Mobihoc, Mobisys, Mobicom and VANET.