2.5.5 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:

       http://protean.itd.nrl.navy.mil/manet/manet_home.html -- Additional MANET Page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 56th IETF Meeting in San Francisco, California USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2003-03-10

Joseph Mgraphics/er <mgraphics/er@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
Scott Corson <corson@flarion.com>
Routing Area Director(s):
Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
Routing Area Advisor:
Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: manet@ietf.org
To Subscribe: manet-request@ietf.org
In Body: subscribe manet
Archive: www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/manet/current/maillist.html
Description of Working Group:
The purpose of this working group is to standardize IP routing protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application within both static and dynamic topologies. The fundamental design issues are that the wireless link interfaces have some unique routing interface characteristics and that node topologies within a wireless routing region may experience increased dynamics, due to motion or other factors.

In the past, this WG has focused on exploring a broad range of MANET problems, performance issues, and related candidate protocols. Under this revised charter, the WG will operate under a reduced scope by targeting the promotion of a number of core routing protocol specifications to EXPERIMENTAL RFC status (i.e., AODV, DSR, OLSR and TBRPF). Some maturity of understanding and implementation exists with each of these protocols, yet more operational experimentation experience is seen as desirable. Overall, these protocols provide a basic set of MANET capabilities covering both reactive and proactive design spaces.

With this experimental protocol base established, the WG will move on to design and develop MANET common group engineered routing specification(s) and introduce these to the Internet Standards trgraphics/. Lessons learned from existing proposals will provide useful design input, but the target for this effort is a common group engineering effort not a recompilation of an existing approaches.

As part of this effort, the WG will address the aspects of security and congestion control in the designed routing protocol(s).

This working group will work closely with the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) groups on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (RRG) for trgraphics/ing and considering any mature developments from the related research community.

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.
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
MAR 03  Submit DSR specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC
MAR 03  Submit OLSR specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC
MAR 03  Submit TBRPF specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC
JUL 03  Develop a further focused problem statement and address an approach for a common engineering work effort
NOV 03  Reevaluate the WG's potential based on the problem statement consensus
  • - draft-ietf-manet-aodv-13.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-dsr-08.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-olsr-08.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-tbrpf-07.txt
  • Request For Comments:
    RFC2501 I Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations

    Current Meeting Report

    56th IETF MANET Working Group Minutes 
    20 March 2003
    Thanks to Brian Adamson for scribing the general meeting minutes.
    Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (manet) Agenda 
    Thursday, Mar , 1500-1700
    1. Agenda Bashing (5 min)
    2. Review of Charter/Milestone and IRTF Update (10 min)
    Working Document Progress Updates
    3. AODV Update (20 min)
    4. DSR Update (20 min)
    5. OLSR Update (20 min
    6. TBRPF Update (20 min)
    7. Further Progression of Documents (5 min)
    8. Next Steps: Problem Statement Consensus and Standards Trgraphics/ Approach (20 
    Joe Mgraphics/er (WG co-chair) presented the meeting agenda.  Scott Corson (WG 
    co-chair) was absent from this meeting.
    Rechartering Review (see updated IETF website)
    Joe Mgraphics/er next presented the MANET rechartering status.  A new charter and 
    updated milestones have been approved and posted.  In reviewing the 
    charter text, it was pointed out IESG input added an item concerning 
    congestion control of MANET routing protocols to the working group 
    charter goals. There was Chair and WG consensus that the statement in the 
    charter concerning this should be clarified.  (I.e. make it clear that the 
    congestion control mentioned does not imply 'TCP fairness' but instead is 
    intended to make sure that 'implosion' avoidance of routing control, etc is 
    addressed  and the protocols’ performance issues in these regards are 
    An overview of the interim working group goals and milestones was 
    provided.  It was announced that the IESG had approved AODV for 
    Experimental and that it should be in process with the RFC Editor.
    IRTF Update
    Elizabeth Belding-Royer provided an overview of IRTF Ad hoc Network 
    Scaling (ANS).  Contact and mailing list information was provided.  Both 
    Elizabeth and Scott Corson will be serving as co-chairs.
    See the IRTF ANS Website: 
    IRTF ANS goals were presented.  Scalability with an emphasis on 
    developing metrics for assessing protocol performance is a primary focus.  
    There was some discussion concerned what problem spaces would be taken on 
    within the IRTF.
    A 'Bar BOF' was announced in the evening of 9:30 PM, 20 March 2003 to 
    gather more interest and feedbgraphics/ for IRTF ANS topics, goals, etc.  
    Hilton San Francisco hotel bar will be the location.
    The first intended ANS meeting was announced to take place with the ACM 
    Mobihoc conference:
    Sunday 7-10PM 1 June, location Annapolis, Maryland with Mobihoc.
    AODV Status
    Charlie Perkins presented an AODV update.  There were a few changes to the 
    document as it made its way through the recent IESG review.  There was 
    added clarification for handling subnet routes.  It was clarified that 
    subnet routes are handled the same as host routes.  If a specific host on a 
    subnet is unreachable, the subnet leader may send an ICMP 'host 
    unreachable' instead of a route error message for the particular subnet 
    host(s).  Editorial changes, applicability statement, IANA 
    considerations, etc.
    DSR Status
    Dave Johnson presented an update on the DSR ID status.  A small number of 
    changes occurred, mainly some rearrangement and integration.  An 
    optional flow state extension was, however, added bgraphics/ into the draft 
    where it was previously in a separate 'DSR Flow' draft.
    Q:  If you lose the first pgraphics/et with the full source route, what 
    A: A route error is sent bgraphics/ on pgraphics/ets with unknown flow id.
    Q:  Is the interim pgraphics/et loss a concern?
    A:  DSR salvaging usually handles this and there are documented studies of 
    pgraphics/et delivery ratios.
    OLSR Status
    Thomas Clausen (INRIA) presented an update on the OLSR ID status.
    A recent ID was posted and included a number of changes, most of which were 
    editorial and involved reorganization of the document to improve 
    readability. A clarification was provided regarding the handling and 
    discussion of multiple interfaces.  Also, the document now clearly 
    separates auxiliary features such as host/network association messages from 
    core protocol features. A 'validity time' has been added to the 
    messages. One mistake was made in that proper updating of the internal 
    routing table with 2-hop information was accidentally dropped in the 
    transition from version 7 to version 8 of the spec.  This will fixed ASAP.  
    Thomas indicated that there have been a number of reviews and comments 
    already since the version 8 draft release.
    What next?
    Chair comment:  Single interface and multiple interface sections are 
    pretty redundant.  Could be integrated?  Document would shorter, 
    A: Yes with the consensus of the working group this could be done.
    Chair Comment:  'Willingness' parameter can be zero and this MAY affect 
    some of the election algorithms, state maintenance, etc.  Recommend 
    doublechecking this.
    A: Agreed.
    Thomas:  Feels document is ready to move forward to Exp. RFC pending 
    integrating current feedbgraphics/ and comments.  
    The Working Chair recommended an additional quick revision cycle (or 
    explanation of known changes) to provide working group members a little 
    more time for review and input.
    Thomas: Will commit to quick turn-around.
    AD Comment: Read ID guidelines, etc to quickly meet IESG 
    Thomas:  Can the ADs review the current security considerations to help 
    with this?
    AD: Yes.
    TBRPF Status
    Richard Ogier presented a TBRPF ID update.  The document now 
    references the Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) working group.  Richard 
    feels document is ready for Exp. RFC submission.  Richard Ogier went on to 
    present suggestions for merging proactive routing protocol ideas.
    Chair comments: With regards to not sending periodic topology updates when 
    there are no topology changes?  With regards to protocol robustness what is 
    the current level of understanding, while a good scalability idea, is 
    robustness questionable?  a lost update is now a more significant 
    problem to be resolved.  Agreed it is worth further discussion.
    There was some discussion among the OLSR and TBRPF authors that they were 
    attempting to work together. An IPR discussion ensued relating to 
    people’s level of comfort in working together on a future 
    document. The authors were attempting to work these issues out.  
    Further Work Strategy
    Joe Mgraphics/er presented some strawman discussion topics for future work 
    First and foremost the WG needs the authors’ commitment to revise the 
    documents as needed and address any issues with present upcoming 
    submission goals.  We would like to see WG last call inputs occurring 
    within 2 weeks or so.  Relating to the chair’s schedule issues, most 
    authors indicated a commitment to quickly respond to WG input.
    Upcoming WG issues beyond progression of the current documents are:
    - some level of problem statement consensus. 
    - IETF vs. IRTF problem split considerations.  
    - agreement on consensus-based engineering approach.
    Discussion ensued including any relationship with the previously briefed 
    OSPFv3 with manet extensions work (Fred Baker).  It was stated any 
    proposals like this would be further brought up within the OSPF WG for 
    possible consideration first. The chair and others expressed interest in 
    this related work but the proper forum and scope had not been 
    identified.  This was not seen as a replacement for the manet routing work 
    ongoing, but may provide some practical application.
    Relating to security it was stated that some degree of further threat 
    assessment should be developed for helping in understanding MANET 
    security considerations.
    WG Comment: Many of the ongoing security working areas need people with 
    wireless experience involved.  Suggest interested parties get 
    Ongoing work in more distributed security and routing area solutions may 
    likely apply.
    The chair asked the WG to begin considering the details of 
    appropriate engineering issues for the next phase of work.
    Open Discussion
    There was some discussion of a common problem statement 
    understanding.  Using numbers of nodes was considered non-exact because of 
    the numerous problem dimensions involved in any performance scenario. The 
    chair also commented that the WG should avoid the 'bakeoff contest' 
    method since this tended to stimulate more research-oriented 
    approaches in the past and less group-based engineering. 
    Comment: Need typical example networks in mind or we go down the rathole of 
    the past.
    Chair:  Agreed. Need some level of applicability and problem statement 
    understanding is needed.
    Comment:  There appears to be some competitive spirit here for what 
    follows, but collaboration requires something different  what are 
    thoughts on the overall architecture.  Will the working group be split up 
    into sub-components to tgraphics/le different areas?
    Chair: We’re not all going to agree 100%  we need to find the common 
    overlapping areas through discussion and focus on core components that can be 
    engineered we will then build off 'lessons learned' to date. 
    Comment: Believes 'component based architecture' can help the group to work 
    Other WG comment: Agrees we need a family of components to work 
    together including support for connection/gateway to the Internet 
    More WG comments were raised relating to the specific approach that could be 
    Chair: Don’t forget, while I am sensing among some members a 
    reluctance to target the simpler problem space, we presently don’t have 
    'Standard' ways to do manet routing  even for small networks with 
    moderate mobilitythat would be useful specification output from this group 
    (this group has already produced useful experimental output and a set of 
    working prototype implementations) but at the same time any design 
    shouldn’t preclude the ability to scale well through design 
    extensions (e.g., fuzzy-sighted link state extension) or simply based upon 
    inherent design properties, etc.  ultimately good core designs should be 
    extensible and also work reasonable well on a moderate scale without 
    Q:  Are we committed to two protocols classes (proactive, reactive)?
    Chair: This is undecided  it is one taxonomy to consider (and has some 
    rationale based upon previous WG development and work elements), but 
    hybrid behavior and others issues may be addressed making the taxonomy less 
    accurate.  It is up to the WG to discuss what seems sensible in the near 
    future  it is likely that 'one size fits all' won’t make it, but the 
    solution space should perhaps be limited to two at most 
    At this point, the meeting was adjourned.  The chair asked the 
    presenters to please submit their slides electronically if they had not 
    already done so.


    IRTF Research Group on Ad hoc Network Scaling
    Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF)