Last Modified: 2003-10-20
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.
|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|
|RFC2501||I||Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations|
|RFC3561||E||Ad Hoc On Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing|
worse 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> Scott Corson <email@example.com> AGENDA: 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 draft-baker-manet-ospf-problem-statement-00 Discussion 5 Mins OSPFv2 + MANET I-D 10 Mins Tom Henderson draft-spagnolo-manet-ospf-wireless-interface-00 Discussion 5 Mins Next Steps Discussion 10 Mins Chairs/All ------------------------------------------------------s ---------------------------------------- ----------------------- SUMMARY MINUTES 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 editors 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, MacOS). 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 simultaneously. 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.