Last Modified: 2005-02-01
| 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 |
| RFC | Status | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 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) |
|
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, 255.255.255.255 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. |