Last Modified: 2005-02-09
Monday, March 8th 2005 at 0900-1130
Thomas Clausen <T.Clausen@computer.com>
Shubhranshu Singh <Shubhranshu@samsung.com>
Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
- Agenda Bashing (Shubhranshu/Clausen) - 05 Minutes
- Background & Status (Shubhranshu/Clausen) - 15 Minutes
- Summary of existing proposals (Shubhranshu/Clausen) - 20 Minutes
- Connectivity Scenarii for Manet (Ruffino) - 15 Minutes
- Problem Statement (Perkins) - 20 Minutes
- Proposed Charter (Shubhranshu/Clausen) - 5 Minutes
- Open Discussion - 30 Minutes
- Should a WG exist?
- Agenda Bashing (Clausen)
- Background & Status (Clausen)
- Summary of existing proposals (Shubhranshu)
Question: any problem statement existing? Doubt over the fact that only one solution to everything can be produced.
Clausen: yes, many drafts contain requirements specifications, or scenarii descriptions. There is also an existing tentative problem statement draft. We intend to update this draft with the feedback we get in general after this bof.
Other comment: The result of this work has to be one and only one solution
(for the industry to be able to use this work)
- Connectivity Scenarii for Manet (Ruffino)
Question: What is manet specific and what is more generic problems?
Ruffino: The difference is the multi-hop aspect. Standardized autoconf mechanisms don't work with that.
Clausen: Another question is: what is a link in the wireless environment? We have to reach a consensus on this. This is a requirement to go further.
Ruffino: The partionning/merging aspect is also specific to manet.
Question: Is this a L2 or L3 problem? Do you decrement TTL at each hop?
Clausen: Yes we do, so this is a L3 problem, for now at least.
Question: Are transit networks envisionned?
Clausen: we are not considering this as in the scope.
Margaret: It is not clear to me how you run IP over the multihop wireless scenarii described. Is this IP routing without the subnet philosophy?
Clausen: See MANET work: basically nodes are both end-points and routers.
Margaret: It is still not clear to me how to break free from the subnet philosophy.
Clausen: there is no aggregation done, only flat routing.
Charlie: Link definition must be addressed. Layer 2, or layer 2.5?
Question: We have to understand why a transit ad-hoc network and an edge ad hoc network is different. Has the Manet produced a document about the architecture of ad hoc network? With the definition of an IP link in this environment? We need an agreement on this.
Charlie: There are several different opinions on this problem, as on various other things.
Question: What is a gateway? Does it have to be a router, does it have to be connected to the internet?
Clausen: From a MANET perspective: yes it is a router. It may not be conected to the internet.
Question: Why not do prefix delegation, since every node is a router and/or a gateway?
Clausen: yes this might be possible, but since the nodes are mobile, we have to solve the problem of how to do this properly.
Question: Is the scope of this BOF more than doing auto-conf? Is configuring security parameters in scope?
Clausen: It's a good point, we should take it to the mailing list.
- Problem Statement (Perkins)
Question: In case of disconnected networks, it may be causing problems to keep previously assigned prefixes?
Perkins: Individual nodes should be able to maintain their address. A node coming in contact with a new gateway will possibly get a new prefix, and from then on the prefix may change
Question: Is this work (autoconf) a routing problem or not?
Perkins: it is hard to distinguish, but i think it is not a routing problem.
Question: Take care of ongoing sessions when doing DAD?
Clausen: it is a good point but out of the scope here.
Question: Is there any particular reason you think hierarchy would be good? How would DAD relate to that.
Perkins: yes, hierarchy is good for scalability and aggregation reasons. DAD would still be distributed.
Question: Do we consider to use MIPv6 and MIPv4 to route to a node with permanent address that moves?
Clausen: yes. We need to use such mechanisms, and probably NEMO too.
Question: If gateways are ad hoc nodes we need to be careful about this case, relatively to the routing protocol in use. Also, Mobile IP might not be a good solution for all types of situation and nodes, might be too heavy.
Clausen: the way IETF deals with moving nodes/addresses is Mobile IP. You could try to extend it, but you have to go through it if you want to have an IETF mechanism.
Question: Electing a leader in the manet and use that for autoconf and connectivity outside the manet is good.
Perkins: agreed. Lets discuss that.
Question: Not all nodes want to route packets. This should be explicitly allowed and taken into account.
Perkins: I agree with that, sensor networks are good example for that.
Question (CRC): About hierarchy, are we talking about routing hierarchy or address hierarchy?
Perkins: routing is not the scope here, but we want to enable address hierarchy (this is the point).
Question: About the merging/splitting, can we distinguish the routing and the addressing problem?
Perkins: we think it is possible to distinguish and we want to address the addressing problem.
QUestion: Manet routing: multihop neighbor discovery. Can we be independent from the routing protocol in place? What are we assuming?
Clausen: We don't want to design a new routing protocol. We have to seperate from routing scope.
Question: What are we configuring? Only routers?
Clausen: yes , we are configuring nodes that run the protocol. But these nodes might also ask for a whole range of address to itself configure nodes behind him that don't run the protocol.
Question: We need to consider if DNS related problems are in scope here
- Conclusion about wether or not to create a WG (Clausen)
Comment: If we don't want to change the IP model of subnet, the goals are doable in a 5 pages document, wether it's layer2 or layer3.
Question: Are we going to refer to MANET documents?
Clausen: it depends on the timing. We can't reference non standard tracks.
Question (AD): There is WG matter. But the problem is to broad. We need to focus more on a specific problem
Clausen: Agreed, we need to focus more for the charter.
Chris: Auto-configuration is a real requirement, and we need to address it.
Ian: a group would be appropriate. But we need to have a clear goal.
Margaret: Do we have a scoped problem that is not research but IETF work? What would be the deliverables exactly?
Clausen: (showing the slide of the tentative proposed charter)
Charlie: I don't think this work would break IP model, at least not more than Mobile IP. We don't have to solve the problem of address permanence and routing in this work.
Comment: It is unclear that we are NOT going to break IP. What is the model for a link? If we model it as L2 and IP on top it's ok. But if not, we might break IP.
Alex Zinin: I don't think MANET breaks IP. It is a challenge but it does not. We have documentation on MANET.
Margaret: The use of the term MANET is confusing, what do you mean by Mobile Ad-Hoc Network.