2.5.5 Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (manet)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 62nd IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, MN USA. It may now be out-of-date.
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

Last Modified: 2005-02-01


Joseph Macker <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
Ian Chakeres <idc@cs.ucsb.edu>

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: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing
protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application within
both static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due to node
motion or other factors.

Approaches are intended to be relatively lightweight in nature, suitable
for multiple hardware and wireless environments, and address scenarios
where MANETs are deployed at the edges of an IP infrastructure. Hybrid
mesh infrastructures (e.g., a mixture of fixed and mobile routers)
should also be supported by MANET specifications and management features.

Using mature components from previous work on experimental reactive and
proactive protocols, the WG will develop two Standards track routing
protocol specifications:

- Reactive MANET Protocol (RMP)
- Proactive MANET Protocol (PMP)

If significant commonality between RMRP and PMRP protocol modules is
observed, the WG may decide to go with a converged approach. Both IPv4
and IPv6 will be supported. Routing security requirements and issues
will also be addressed.

The MANET WG will also develop a scoped forwarding protocol that can
efficiently flood data packets to all participating MANET nodes. The
primary purpose of this mechanism is a simplified best effort multicast
forwarding function. The use of this protocol is intended to be applied
ONLY within MANET routing areas and the WG effort will be limited to
routing layer design issues.

The MANET WG will pay attention to the OSPF-MANET protocol work within
the OSPF WG and IRTF work that is addressing research topics related to
MANET environments.

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
Done  Develop a further focused problem statement and address an approach for a common engineering work effort
Done  Reevaluate the WG's potential based on the problem statement consensus
Mar 05  Submit initial ID of RMP for WG review
Mar 05  Submit initial ID of PMP for WG review
Mar 05  Submit inital ID of generalized MANET flooding approach
Jun 05  Revise WG documents and review
Nov 05  Document initial implementation progress and experience Revise documents based upon implementation experience
Feb 06  Submit RMP specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard
Feb 06  Submit PMP specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard
Feb 06  Submit MANET flooding specification to IESG for publication as Experimental Standard
Mar 06  Review and update milestones


  • draft-ietf-manet-dsr-10.txt
  • draft-ietf-manet-dymo-00.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
    RFC3626 E Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
    RFC3684 E Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF)

    Current Meeting Report

    IETF 62 MANET WG Minutes

    Thursday March 10th 9am - 11:30 CST 2005

    Instructions to find the mp3 audio archive of the meeting are
    available at http://www.ietf.org/audio//

    WG Chairs Present - Ian Chakeres and Joe Macker

    Scribe Krishna Ramachandran

    Minutes are paraphrased.

    Joe Macker (JM) - MANET Charter Update and Status - see presentation

    Charlie Perkins (CP) - Is the focus of the MANET WG shifting away from standalone MANET?

    JM - No, but we want to insure that the protocols are designed to connect to the Internet.

    Gabriel Montenegro (GM) - Perhaps we should have someone from OPs WG come in to give MANET advice about management of the MANET routing protocols.

    Pedro Ruiz (PR) - There are a number of addressing issues related to MANET gateway operation, given the hierarchical organized Internet and the flat MANET.

    Samita Chakrabati (SC) - Will the MANET protocols be IPv4 and IPv6 compatible?

    JM - We would prefer each protocol to handle IPv4 and IPv6 operation in the same document.

    Ian Chakeres (IC) - DYMO Update - see presentation

    Several comments about MANETcast address. In summary, or ff02::X addresses are not the address that should be used to transmit control messages to all MANET nodes. A new multicast address should be allocated from IANA.

    IC - I will look into getting a multicast address for MANETcast purpose.

    Dave Johnson (DJ) - If path accumulation is not required in DYMO its utility is much smaller. Since you no longer know the whole path.

    IC - We do not want to prohibit use in networks that require small control messages.

    GM - In terms of performance what is the difference between full and partial path accumulation?

    Krishna Ramachandran (KR) - Metrics are very important. MANET should focus on including routing metrics in the routing protocol.

    DJ - Several people have added additional metrics to the reactive protocols.

    IC - Our hope is that by being easily extend able DYMO will allow people to add additional routing metrics in the future.

    Several comments about RATE_LIMIT on DYMO packets. It was agreed a more complex method of limiting traffic (such as an exponential backoff) might be beneficial.

    Thomas Clausen - Proactive MANET Routing Protocol - see presentation

    JM - Link local addresses are useful for signaling.

    TC - True, but they are not useful for creating routes.

    CP - Efficiency is extremely important and the many tradeoffs make it hard to clear we should not be afraid of adding more complexity if we can achieve more efficiency.

    Comment - If there are some modular items (such as data structures) that can be used by both DYMO and PMRP they should be used by both.

    Discussion - Should we look at convergence of reactive and proactive? At this time we are focused on keeping them separate, but any common mechanisms that are compatible would make a future convergence easier..

    Joe Macker - Simplified Multicast Forwarding - see presentation

    DJ - Modifying the ID field may be difficult on some OS, such as FreeBSD. Because FreeBSD randomizes the ID field to be more secure.

    JM - For SMF we need some identifying feature to perform duplicate detection.

    Singh Shubhranshu - MANET AUTOCONF BOF - see presentation

    TC - The BOF was a success, since it showed there is significant interested in the topic.

    Thomas Clausen - OLSR 2nd Interop & Workshop - see presentation

    Joe Macker - OSPF-MANET Update - see presentation

    Dave Johnson - Plug for Mobihoc, Mobisys, Mobicom and VANET.


    Charter Update and Status
    Dynamic MANET On-demand Routing Protocol
    Next-Gen Proactive MANET Routing
    Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF) Progress/Issues
    AUTOCONF BOF: review & status
    Call for Participation: OLSR
    OSPF MANET Design Team update