Current Meeting Report

2.4.3 Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 53rd IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, MN USA. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 07-Mar-02
Joseph Macker <>
Scott Corson <>
Routing Area Director(s):
Randy Bush <>
Bill Fenner <>
Routing Area Advisor:
Bill Fenner <>
Mailing Lists:
To Subscribe:
In Body: subscribe manet
Description of Working Group:
A "mobile ad hoc network" (MANET) is an autonomous system of mobile routers (and associated hosts) connected by wireless links--the union of which form an arbitrary graph. The routers are free to move randomly and organize themselves arbitrarily; thus, the network's wireless topology may change rapidly and unpredictably. Such a network may operate in a standalone fashion, or may be connected to the larger Internet.

The primary focus of the working group is to develop and evolve MANET routing specification(s) and introduce them to the Internet Standards track. The goal is to support networks scaling up to hundreds of routers. If this proves successful, future work may include development of other protocols to support additional routing functionality. The working group will also serve as a meeting place and forum for those developing and experimenting with MANET approaches.

The working group will examine related security issues around MANET. It will consider the intended usage environments, and the threats that are (or are not) meaningful within that environment.

Goals and Milestones:
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.
Oct 97   Post Internet-Drafts for candidate protocols.
Done   Discuss proposed protocols and issues. Redefine charter.
Feb 98   Submit Internet-Draft of MANET Routing Protocol Performanc Issues and Evaluation Considerations to IESG for publication as an informational RFC.
Feb 98   Submit Internet-Draft of MANET Terminology Document to IESG for publication as an informational RFC.
Mar 98   Revise candidate I-Ds as appropriate
Aug 98   Target demonstration of working software prototypes
Mar 99   Target interoperable implementations, and review any required protocol modifications. Publish as I-D
Dec 99   Document and submit protocol specification(s) to IESG as proposed standards
Request For Comments:
RFC2501 Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations

Current Meeting Report

Minutes of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet)
53rd IETF Proceedings
MONDAY, March 18 at 1930-2200

Minutes taken by Jorjeta Jetcheva


Joseph Macker <>
M. Scott Corson <> (ABSENT)


1. Agenda Bashing (5 min)
2. Status of AODV EXPERIMENTAL Submission Progress (10 min)

Updates of Current Drafts
3. DSR update: Johnson (Rice) (20 min)
4. TBRPF Update Ogier/Templin (SRI) (30 min)
5. OLSR update Clausen (INRIA) (30 min)

New Discussions
6. Manet extensions to OSPF, Baker (CISCO) (20 min)
7. Redirects for MANET Templin (SRI) (20 min)
8. Other Activity and Implementation Announcements (10 min)
9. Open Discussion <Remaining>


1. Agenda bashing

2. Charlie Perkins presented AODV EXPERIMENTAL submission progress:

- Changes since draft 09 (current draft version is 10)
- New version of draft will be released before April which will incorporate late last call comments from Yih-Chun Hu, Manuel Zapata and input from the Routing ADs Bill Fenner and Alex Zinin.
- AODV interoperability testing at UC Santa Barbara is taking place next week using seven different implementations of AODV.
- AODV workshop after Mobihoc 2002 in Lausanne, Switzerland. The workshop is intended to "provide vision for the future evolution of AODV".

3. Yih-Chun Hu presented updates to the DSR draft (version 7)

- Added black lists to enable routing in the presence of unidirectional links.
- Added multiple interface support.
- Specified fragmentation and reassembly for DSR based on existing standards.
- Still to do:
* Integrating Route Requests and Route Replies for CIDR blocks.
* Would like to add the DSR flow state mechanism as an option to the DSR draft.
* Applicability statement (up to 100 nodes; mobility up to 15 seconds per transmission radius).

Discussion with the WG chairs regarding authors' desire to add flow state back into the DSR draft. QoS was removed from the flow state draft at the request of the WG chairs. The DSR authors suggested that flow state be included in DSR before DSR goes through WG last call. The WG Chairs suggested soliciting opinions from the mailing list on this issue before making a decision.

4. Richard Ogier presented an update to the TBRPF draft including the following:

- Overview of TBRPF.
- Changes from version 03 to version 05
- IPR Issues Raised:
* Only protects SRI if TBRPF does not become an IETF standard.
* If TBRPF (or any part of it) becomes a standard, anyone can use it for any purpose for free.
* SRI will give licenses to people who would like to implement TBRPF before it becomes an IETF standard.

Related to IPRs, a question was raised regarding IETF action on investigating potential AODV related IPR. The WG chair replied that (Bradner/Coya) had previously been consulted on process and appropriate IETF action was taken by Coya (IBM was contacted) based upon input from the WG chairs.

- Clarification of the advantages of modular neighbor sensing.
- Overview of TBRPF routing.
- Some perceived drawbacks of using OLSR MPRs were presented.

A comment was raised that the presentation of MPR disadvantages was misleading, because it discussed only a partial topology mode application of MPRs where several implementors have applied MPRs in a more flexible manner, including full topology modes. Also, it was noted that MPR advantages were not mentioned to balance out the arguments presented.

A TBRPF document review by the WG chair suggested that OLSR references and references to non-static documents be avoided/removed from the TBRPF specification. There were numerous cross references and comparisons that were seen as not appropriate for a specification document.

- Potential advantages of using differential topology updates were presented
- It was pointed at that there was no link-layer notification OLSR implementation from INRIA yet

In response, Joe Macker mentioned that NRL has an independently developed an ns-2 OLSR v4 implementation that includes link-layer notification.

- Support for multiple interfaces was recently added
- IPv6 operation is discussed

Joe Macker raised the question of whether declaring a link down as a result of a single link layer failure notifications in TBRPF and other protocols is a good idea. He suggested that this is a drastic measure given that time varying effects may cause such failure but is not an indication that the link is actually down. To minimize route flapping, etc further filtering on such signals was suggested.

- The TBRPF flooding mechanism was reviewed

- Simulation of OLSR and TBRPF: still trying to determine why different performance results are reported by different groups using the same code

- TBRPF ns-2 and linux code is available from the SRI website.

Thomas Clausen pointed out that his comments on the complexity of the TBRPF draft were made regarding the draft's readability rather than the complexity of the protocol itself.

5. Thomas Clausen presented updates to the OLSR draft

- The OLSR draft is stable and mature: no core changes since version 00.
- Updates from version 05 to version 06: no major changes
- OLSR overview
- Neighborhood management
- Support for multiple interfaces
- Generalized and discussed MPR heuristics
- Graphs showing OLSR simulation results for MPR coverage for 50 and 100 nodes for the MPR mechanism in the 05 draft and the improved MPR mechanism which includes the new heuristics described in the 06 draft.
- Fast rerouting with link-layer notification described

Joe Macker raised the issue that the OLSR draft does not specify how packet duplicate detection is performed in the presence of packet aggregation. Thomas Clausen responded that possible implementations of duplicate detection in the context of packet aggregation will be discussed in future versions of the OLSR draft.

6. Fred Baker presented: OSPF v3 as a Manet Routing Protocol

- Commercial manet protocols: what is important in the market place?
* application-specific protocols may be of interest
* ease of deployment is key
- Issues with OSPF v2
- OSPF v3 was presented as a better potential framework for implementing a set of manet extensions
- A Manet interface type was discussed and related implications to an OSPF extension
- A number of approaches and scenarios relating to inter-Area mobility were presented as well

Fred Templin raised the question of whether there will be too many prefixes to keep track of. Fred answered that this shouldn't be a big problem as the number of prefixes will not be too large.

Dave Johnson pointed out that the concept of areas has been considered before in an ISPAN '99 paper published by the Rice/CMU Monarch project. Movement between areas is accomplished through Mobile IP. This mechanism has also been implemented and tested in a DSR testbed.

- A link state metric equation was presented

Richard Ogier suggested that path length should be included in the metric. Fred Baker agreed.

- Installing IPv4 routes (OSPF v3 is an IPv6 protocol)

The WG chair clarified that Fred Baker is not suggesting a replacement for the current proactive MANET protocol proposals, but that his proposal has likely application for a number of envisioned scenarios.

Charlie Perkins argued that areas may not be applicable to all ad hoc network environments and to protocols advocating an on-demand approach to routing.

A question is raised about whether OSPFv3 handles partitions. Fred Baker answered that it can be done but not easily.

7. Fred Templin presented ICMP redirect issues in MANET

8. Announcements and General WG discussion

Yih-Chun Hu reported that a new implementation of DSR on Windows CE from the University of Dublin is now available. A new implementation of DSR under linux is also available. Contact for more information.

Joe Macker announced that NRL has made available the OLSR Linux implementation with NRL modifications (this code is based upon INRIA v3 code). It has been applied in live testbeds with 10-20 mobile nodes. There is also a v4 based ns2 model which is being released. This model includes several optional modes including link layer notification and a full topology mode. The project releases can be found at <>.

Dave Johnson advertised Mobihoc 2002 to be held in the summer of 2002 in Lausanne, Switzerland.


OSPF V3 as a Manet Routing Protocol