Current Meeting Report
Jabber Logs

2.5.4 Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet)

In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at: -- Additional MANET Page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 55th IETF Meeting in Altanta, Georgia USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modifield: 04/23/2002

Joseph Macker <>
Scott Corson <>
Routing Area Director(s):
Bill Fenner <>
Alex Zinin <>
Routing Area Advisor:
Alex Zinin <>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:
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
  • - draft-ietf-manet-zone-zrp-04.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-aodv-11.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-olsr-06.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-tbrpf-05.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-lanmar-04.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-fsr-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-zone-brp-02.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-zone-ierp-02.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-zone-iarp-02.txt
  • Request For Comments:
    RFC2501 I Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations

    Current Meeting Report

    Minutes of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet)
    55th IETF Proceedings
    Thursday, Nov 21 at 1300-1500
    Minutes taken by Justin Dean
    CHAIRS: M. Scott Corson <> 
                  Joseph Macker <> 
    (10 min) Agenda Bashing and Announcements
    (20 min) Proposed Manet Way Forward
    (10 min) Strawman Proposal for Charter and Milestone Update
    (10 min) Related IRTF Activity Announcement
    (10 min) Open Discussion of Proposal and Issues
    (15 min) TBRPF Update
    (15 min) DSR Update
    (15 min) OLSR Update
    (15 min) AODV Update
    Joe Macker presented the agenda and opened it up for bashing.
    The agenda was accepted as is with no bashing.
    Joe Macker had some issues regarding the manet mailing list that he 
    wished to remind members about.
    - There are 1969 members currently on the manet mailing list.
    - Only members are allowed to post to the mailing list. Somewhat 
    standard practice, but not a perfect way to reduce spam, etc.
    - Manet members should be aware when switching account names so that they 
    may still post effectively without moderator intervention.
    - The newer mailing list is reasonably automated; please use the 
    automated features to manage your own accounts whenever possible.
    - NS2, GLOMOSIM, QUALNET, OPNET simulation software questions have 
    recently increased in volume.  Often simulation environment specific 
    questions are not appropriate for the mass manet mailing list, members are 
    urged to contact the authors of the code or appropriate simulation 
    mailing list for instruction questions, FAQs, etc.
    MANET Way Forward (for details see presentation in proceedings)
    Joe Macker presented an overview of a proposed way forward for the manet WG 
    that was being worked on in conjunction with the ADs. Recent perceived WG 
    status is that manet prototype implementation, designs, and 
    experimentation are very active. However, the WG has experienced 
    significant “research creep” into the ongoing work by continuing to 
    consider broad work issues in the manet problem space.  It is the 
    intention of the chairs and the ADs to update the charter of the WG to 
    scope down to a focused engineering mode of work.  The core approach is:
    ·       reduce the near term scope of the present WG
    ·       formulate an IRTF venue for manet research items, split off 
    related longer term research work from IETF
    ·       complete several mature unicast protocol ID work as 
    ·       formulate a focused problem statement(s)
    ·       convert core work items to an engineering mode and target common 
    Proposed Standard effort(s)
    Alex Zinin: Routing co-AD (for details see presentation in 
    Alex Zinin next discussed the proposed rechartering effort.  Alex 
    mentioned that he had posted a note to the list summarizing some of the 
    issues as they have emerged a few weeks back.  The summary is that very 
    useful work is being done in manet, but the WG is operating under a wide 
    problem statement.  The perception is there are many competing 
    protocols, a lack of WG-wide consensus, and no signs of 
    convergence. All of the above == research mode.
    The goals of the proposed charter update would be to convert the WG to the 
    IETF mode:
                    Clear and focused problem statement
                    Focused WG charter, clear milestones
                    WG members working closely towards consensus
                    Design IETF MANET protocol STD
    Work that needs more research (yes, it is somewhat subjective) will move to 
    the IRTF.
    Proposed Steps:
            First, we create an IRTF sub-group for MANET and move LANMAR, FSR, 
    ZRP, TORA and similar work into this forum.  We would scope the charter to 
    push DSR, AODV, OLSR, and TBRPF to EXP and when done the WG will better 
    define the engineering problems statement. IF rough agreement is reached on 
    the problem statement we will update the charter with the 
    development of IETF protocol(s) that will go STD tracks.
    Plan of actions 
    We will discuss this more here and on the mailing list (nothing so far). We 
    will announce the decision within a month after this meeting.
    Q:      Will the rechartering approach cause delay in pushing forward EXP 
    RFCs for certain protocols already under consideration?
    A:      No, that is not intended.
    Q:      Will multicast work in manets be carried out in ietf or irtf?
    A:      Lots of papers on this subject already, yet it remains to be 
    decided what is appropriate for engineering. Stay Tuned.
    At this point, the Joe Macker polled the room for consensus on 
    re-chartering direction. Room consensus was attained to re-charter based 
    upon the approach presented..  Further mailing list input will be taken 
    before reaching any decisions.
    Strawman Recharter Presentation - Joe Macker (for details see 
    presentation in proceedings)
    Joe Macker presented some text and line items for consideration in an 
    updated charter/milestone effort. More discussion of this will take place on 
    the mailing list.
    Strawman Near Term Milestones
    Present: Restructure WG to be more narrowly focused, split off 
    important related IRTF work
    Jan 2003 SUBMIT core reactive protocols for EXPERIMENTAL RFC (if not 
    already done)
    Jan 2003 Revisit WG goals and problem statements
    Mar 2003 SUBMIT core proactive protocols for EXPERIMENTAL RFC
    Jun 2003 Develop and approve focused MANET WG problem statements and 
    scoped engineering goals.
    Scott Corson: IRTF MANET research subgroup
    Scott presented an overview of the manet-related IRTF plan.  
    Scalability is the main research theme and some of the goals will be to 
    foster discussion and better understand the limitations of existing 
    approaches (e.g., simple flat reactive and proactive).  The group will look 
    at proposing/developing approaches that demonstrate superior 
    performance (e.g., Hybrid/hierarchical forms and radically new 
    concepts).  More details will be formulated.  It has been a concern that 
    meetings may not be long enough and it is likely that meetings may take 
    place in concert with ongoing events to ease travel as much as 
    A new mailing list will be set up and announced on mailing list
    Q:      Will multicast be in IRTF or IETF?
    A:      Depends on the problem statement that the IETF works out and it may 
    be a mixed case given appropriate rationale of problems statements.
    Q:      What is small/medium networks? Maybe 10-100 nodes but what about 
    movement models?  What type of movement scale are we using?
    A:      We are aware that dynamic link/motion models, traffic flow 
    models, network surge conditions, and other factors affect any 
    scalability assessment besides number of router nodes.  We need some 
    discussion of this in problem and applicability statements.
    Q: Other IETF groups have scalability in the charters so why are we 
    getting rid of it in this charter?
    A:      It is not the intention to artificially limit the potential for 
    large area scalability, however we are not making it a requirement for 
    engineering maturity and applicability reasons.
    Comment:        IRTF should be looking at the limits of current 
    protocols work as well.  This may be fed back to justify changing things in 
    Q: Would like to see IRTF and IETF groups work together closely; 
    meetings at same conference? 
    A: Yes but the IRTF participants need freedom to do their research as 
    Q:  Need to keep problem statement simple.  Where does security belong?  
    What about IETF issuing standard without security in it?
    A:  Need to discuss closer with the routing security working group.
    Comment:  I see a need for simplicity of the protocol.  
    Comment:  I think it would be extremely useful to get RFCs out that can be 
    used for 50-100 node scenarios.
    Comment: HIP ipsec can help to bring improved security to manet.
    Other comment: Systems are being develop that should work with wireless 
    Chair: Great comments, but we need to move one please bring further 
    discussions to the list.
    TBRPF Update: Richard Ogier *see online presentation
    TBRPF is now at Draft revision 6.  It has been rewritten to improve 
    readability. Hello message has been modified to include relay priority 
    similar to OLSR MPR preference.  It was clarified that tbrpf computes the 
    equivalent of MPRs.  There is now a relay priority in each hello.. OLSR MPR 
    willingness is same type of thing and this presents the possibility of 
    merging with OSLR. Other details (see presentation).  There is a new SRI IPR 
    statement registered at
    DSR Update: Dave Johnson
    (see on-line for details).  The final DSR ID for EXPERIMENTAL 
    consideration is not finished yet.  We are trying to add a few things to 
    back into draft. Stuff that was in version 3 of the ID.
    OLSR Update: Thomas Clausen
    (see on-line for details).  A new version of OLSR was update (now 
    version 8).  Posting to ID editor was munged and the draft was posted to the 
    list in the interim.     There are no major changes.  The feedback was that 
    most people intending to use OLSR didn’t want all the features.  They 
    wanted something like version 3 or 4.
    AODV Update: Elizabeth Belding-Royer
    AODV is now at ID version 12.  There we no major changes in this 
    revision.  There was some clarification of local proactive repair.
             for aodv questions.


    Strawman Recharter
    MANET Strategy
    IRTF MANET Research Subgroup
    OLSR Status Review
    DSR Status Update
    Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding
    AODV draft revision 12