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 58th IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2003-10-20

Joseph Macker <macker@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 track. 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 tracking 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
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
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-dsr-09.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-olsr-11.txt
  • - draft-ietf-manet-tbrpf-11.txt
  • Request For Comments:
    RFC2501 I Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations
    RFC3561 E Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing

    Current Meeting Report

    58th IETF MANET Working Group Minutes
    13 November 2003
    Minutes Taken by: Amit Jardosh
    Edited by: Joe Macker and Scott Corson
    Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet)
    Thursday, November 13 at 1530-1730
    CHAIRS: Joe Macker <jmacker@acm.org>
            Scott Corson <corson@flarion.com>
    Agenda Bashing                             5 Mins
    WG Documents and General Status            10 Mins Chairs
    Update of Peripheral I-D Submissions
    (e.g., manet autoconf)
    TBRPF: (IESG Approval to EXP)              10 Mins Richard Ogier
    Discussion                                 5 Mins
    OLSR: RFC 3626 (EXP)                       10 Mins Thomas Clausen
    Discussion                                 5 Mins
    draft-perkins-manet-aodvbis-00             10 Mins Charlie Perkins
    Discussion                                 10 Mins
    Report on AODV-IETF Experiment             10 Mins Elizabeth Royer
    OSPF-MANET Integration Consideration       5 Mins  Chairs
    Draft OSPF-MANET Problem Statement         10 Mins Fred Baker
    Discussion                                 5 Mins
    OSPFv2 + MANET I-D                          10 Mins Tom Henderson
    Discussion                                 5 Mins
    Next Steps Discussion 10 Mins Chairs/All
    The MANET WG met on Thurs, Nov 13th 15:30-17:30 in Minneapolis.
    The meeting began with the traditional agenda bashing session and was then 
    followed by updates of the general status of the WG including the 
    presenting IDs being promoted to EXPERIMENTAL RFC Status.  The chairs 
    stated that the intention of the meeting was to concentrate on the core 
    routing work and to discuss ways forward for that effort.  There has been 
    some delay in the milestone estimates for achieving present document 
    review and publication to EXPERIMENTAL and this has stalled some of the 
    discussions on ways forward.  At present 3 documents have passed IESG 
    review and are either presently EXP RFCs or are in the RFC editing queue.  
    DSR, after considerable review delay, is receiving AD review comments and is 
    continuing to progress through the process.
    Richard Ogier presented a final update for the present version of TBRPF.  
    The status is that TBRPF has passed IESG for EXP status and now resides in 
    the RFC editor’s queue.
    T. Clausen followed with a similar overview of OLSR and summarized the 
    changes that have occurred while in the RFC editor process. The 
    security section was one area that was improved.  Public 
    implementations of OLSR were also announced.  
    J. Macker informed the group there were two public OLSR 
    implementations available from NRL.  First, an older revision of INRIA 
    code, nolsrd, based upon v3 that includes neighbor sensing hysteresis 
    filtering and other performance modifications.  Second, a newer 
    nrlolsrd, that is based on more recent specifications and contains newer 
    features such as HNAs, full link state, improved hysteresis clocking. This 
    implementation also works across multiple platforms (e.g., Linux, WinXP, 
    Charlie Perkins next presented an overview of an aodv-bis I-D.  This I-D 
    contains an updated and improved design from lessons learned beyond the EXP 
    RFC AODV effort.  The authors believe this is a simpler and improved 
    protocol that can potentially help convergence to a common reactive 
    effort within the WG.  The protocol is more modular and optional 
    improvements to protocol operation can be added as modular 
    extensions.  The AODVjr effort investigated an approach to 
    simplifying the overall AODV design.
    The DSR authors raised an opinion that there should some 
    acknowledgement of mechanisms that may have been borrowed from DSR.   
    Borrowing of ideas from multiple pieces of work, including DSR, was 
    acknowledged by Perkins.
    A few additional technical comments on the AODVbis I-D were raised 
    regarding the robustness of 802.11 methods for determining link 
    failure,etc.  It was agreed that these issues would be better 
    discussed in more detail on the list.
    Next a report of the AODV IETF Experiment was provided.   This 
    experiment established an AODV network and gateway at the IETF. 
    Software for multiple platforms was also provided for those that wanted 
    participate in the experiment.  It was observed that 
    unfortunately, a separate wireless channel was not negotiated and the 
    experiment shared a common channel with many of the IETF APs also on 
    Channel 11.  This made the experiment extremely difficult to analyze due to 
    potentially extreme levels of MAC layer congestion experienced from and by 
    non-MANET network users.  Some graphs were provided showing basic 
    performance and results.
    Next Joe Macker provided an introduction to the discussion of a problem 
    statement for MANET and OSPF integration.  The basic problem and past and 
    ongoing work was laid out including some ongoing issues and 
    observations of lessons learned from MANET.  It was also announced that 
    this was being worked in cooperation with the ADs and the OSPF WG chairs and 
    that a presentation had been made to the OSPF WG earlier in the week.  It 
    was announced that while some early designs existed, it was more 
    important to decide that the problem statement was relevant at this 
    point.  If there was some consensus on that issue, then a method could be 
    established for a design team to work this problem.
    Fred Baker next provided a presentation on OSPF covering a basic problem 
    statement and additional perspective including: adding a wireless radio 
    interface to OSPF and additional design issues.  Following the 
    presentation some technical discussion ensued.  Some questions on 
    reliable vs. unreliable flooding were raised. Approaches were 
    mentioned and discussed that actually combined both unreliable and 
    reliable flooding mechanisms as a more optimal approach.  An argument was 
    also made by Baker that having two instances of a MANET routing 
    protocol (one for IPv4 and one for IPv6) running was not desirable.  The 
    MANET extensions could easily support the advertisement of v4 and v6 
    Phil Spagnolo next presented an overview of their work on OSPF-MANET 
    integration within a working OSPFv2 implementation.  This was an 
    information brief of existing implementation work and known issues for 
    future work were raised.
    General discussion followed regarding future steps for the WG. The chairs 
    observed several areas of convergence and commonality of lessons learned 
    that could be used as springboards for the next phase of efforts.  It was 
    agreed that this would be brought to the list for more discussion.


    Problem Statement for OSPF Extensions for Mobile Ad Hoc Routing
    Changes since 57th IETF...