idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-manet-issues-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-24) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 1998) is 9323 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '1' is defined on line 472, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1677 (ref. '1') Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Draft S. Corson 3 Expiration: April 1999 University of Maryland 4 File: draft-ietf-manet-issues-02.txt J. Macker 5 Naval Research Laboratory 6 October 1998 8 Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET): 9 Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 14 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 15 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 16 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 18 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 19 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 20 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference 21 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 23 To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the 24 "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 25 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Europe), 26 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or 27 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 29 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 31 Abstract 33 This memo first describes the characteristics of Mobile Ad hoc 34 Networks (MANETs), and their idiosyncrasies with respect to 35 traditional, hardwired packet networks. It then discusses the effect 36 these differences have on the design and evaluation of network 37 control protocols with an emphasis on routing performance evaluation 38 considerations. 40 1. Introduction 42 With recent performance advancements in computer and wireless 43 communications technologies, advanced mobile wireless computing is 44 expected to see increasingly widespread use and application, much of 45 which will involve the use of the Internet Protocol (IP) suite. The 46 vision of mobile ad hoc networking is to support robust and efficient 47 operation in mobile wireless networks by incorporating routing 48 functionality into mobile nodes. Such networks are envisioned to 49 have dynamic, sometimes rapidly-changing, random, multihop topologies 50 which are likely composed of relatively bandwidth-constrained 51 wireless links. 53 Within the Internet community, routing support for mobile hosts is 54 presently being formulated as "mobile IP" technology. This is a 55 technology to support nomadic host "roaming", where a roaming host 56 may be connected through various means to the Internet other than its 57 well known fixed-address domain space. The host may be directly 58 physically connected to the fixed network on a foreign subnet, or be 59 connected via a wireless link, dial-up line, etc. Supporting this 60 form of host mobility (or nomadicity) requires address management, 61 protocol interoperability enhancements and the like, but core network 62 functions such as hop-by-hop routing still presently rely upon pre- 63 existing routing protocols operating within the fixed network. In 64 contrast, the goal of mobile ad hoc networking is to extend mobility 65 into the realm of autonomous, mobile, wireless domains, where a set 66 of nodes--which may be combined routers and hosts--themselves form 67 the network routing infrastructure in an ad hoc fashion. 69 2. Applications 71 The technology of Mobile Ad hoc Networking is somewhat synonymous 72 with Mobile Packet Radio Networking (a term coined via during early 73 military research in the 70's and 80's), Mobile Mesh Networking (a 74 term that appeared in an article in The Economist regarding the 75 structure of future military networks) and Mobile, Multihop, Wireless 76 Networking (perhaps the most accurate term, although a bit 77 cumbersome). 79 There is current and future need for dynamic ad hoc networking 80 technology. The emerging field of mobile and nomadic computing, with 81 its current emphasis on mobile IP operation, should gradually broaden 82 and require highly-adaptive mobile networking technology to 83 effectively manage multihop, ad hoc network clusters which can 84 operate autonomously or, more than likely, be attached at some 85 point(s) to the fixed Internet. 87 Some applications of MANET technology could include industrial and 88 commercial applications involving cooperative mobile data exchange. 89 In addition, mesh-based mobile networks can be operated as robust, 90 inexpensive alternatives or enhancements to cell-based mobile network 91 infrastructures. There are also existing and future military 92 networking requirements for robust, IP-compliant data services within 93 mobile wireless communication networks [1]--many of these networks 94 consist of highly-dynamic autonomous topology segments. Also, the 95 developing technologies of "wearable" computing and communications 96 may provide applications for MANET technology. When properly combined 97 with satellite-based information delivery, MANET technology can 98 provide an extremely flexible method for establishing communications 99 for fire/safety/rescue operations or other scenarios requiring 100 rapidly-deployable communications with survivable, efficient dynamic 101 networking. There are likely other applications for MANET technology 102 which are not presently realized or envisioned by the authors. It 103 is, simply put, improved IP-based networking technology for dynamic, 104 autonomous wireless networks. 106 3. Characteristics of MANETs 108 A MANET consists of mobile platforms (e.g., a router with multiple 109 hosts and wireless communications devices)--herein simply referred to 110 as "nodes"--which are free to move about arbitrarily. The nodes may 111 be located in or on airplanes, ships, trucks, cars, perhaps even on 112 people or very small devices, and there may be multiple hosts per 113 router. A MANET is an autonomous system of mobile nodes. The system 114 may operate in isolation, or may have gateways to and interface with 115 a fixed network. In the latter operational mode, it is typically 116 envisioned to operate as a "stub" network connecting to a fixed 117 internetwork. Stub networks carry traffic originating at and/or 118 destined for internal nodes, but do not permit exogenous traffic to 119 "transit" through the stub network. 121 MANET nodes are equipped with wireless transmitters and receivers 122 using antennas which may be omnidirectional (broadcast), highly- 123 directional (point-to-point), possibly steerable, or some combination 124 thereof. At a given point in time, depending on the nodes' positions 125 and their transmitter and receiver coverage patterns, transmission 126 power levels and co-channel interference levels, a wireless 127 connectivity in the form of a random, multihop graph or "ad hoc" 128 network exists between the nodes. This ad hoc topology may change 129 with time as the nodes move or adjust their transmission and 130 reception parameters. 132 MANETs have several salient characteristics: 134 1) Dynamic topologies: Nodes are free to move arbitrarily; thus, 135 the network topology--which is typically multihop--may change 136 randomly and rapidly at unpredictable times, and may consist of 137 both bidirectional and unidirectional links. 139 2) Bandwidth-constrained, variable capacity links: Wireless links 140 will continue to have significantly lower capacity than their 141 hardwired counterparts. In addition, the realized throughput of 142 wireless communications--after accounting for the effects of 143 multiple access, fading, noise, and interference conditions, 144 etc.--is often much less than a radio's maximum transmission rate. 146 One effect of the relatively low to moderate link capacities is 147 that congestion is typically the norm rather than the exception, 148 i.e. aggregate application demand will likely approach or exceed 149 network capacity frequently. As the mobile network is often simply 150 an extension of the fixed network infrastructure, mobile ad hoc 151 users will demand similar services. These demands will continue to 152 increase as multimedia computing and collaborative networking 153 applications rise. 155 3) Energy-constrained operation: Some or all of the nodes in a 156 MANET may rely on batteries or other exhaustible means for their 157 energy. For these nodes, the most important system design criteria 158 for optimization may be energy conservation. 160 4) Limited physical security: Mobile wireless networks are 161 generally more prone to physical security threats than are fixed- 162 cable nets. The increased possibility of eavesdropping, spoofing, 163 and denial-of-service attacks should be carefully considered. 164 Existing link security techniques are often applied within 165 wireless networks to reduce security threats. As a benefit, the 166 decentralized nature of network control in MANETs provides 167 additional robustness against the single points of failure of more 168 centralized approaches. 170 In addition, some envisioned networks (e.g. mobile military networks 171 or highway networks) may be relatively large (e.g. tens or hundreds 172 of nodes per routing area). The need for scalability is not unique 173 to MANETS. However, in light of the preceding characteristics, the 174 mechanisms required to achieve scalability likely are. 176 These characteristics create a set of underlying assumptions and 177 performance concerns for protocol design which extend beyond those 178 guiding the design of routing within the higher-speed, semi-static 179 topology of the fixed Internet. 181 4. Goals of IETF Mobile Ad Hoc Network (manet) Working Group 183 The intent of the newly formed IETF manet working group is to develop 184 a peer-to-peer mobile routing capability in a purely mobile, wireless 185 domain. This capability will exist beyond the fixed network (as 186 supported by traditional IP networking) and beyond the one-hop fringe 187 of the fixed network. 189 The near-term goal of the manet working group is to standardize one 190 (or more) intra-domain unicast routing protocol(s) or mode(s), and 191 related network-layer support technology which: 193 * provides for effective operation over a wide range of mobile 194 networking "contexts" (a context is a set of characteristics 195 describing a mobile network and its environment); 197 * provides a standard "protocol or mode discovery" algorithm so 198 that newly-arriving nodes may learn the mode in which a given 199 MANET is operating; 201 * supports traditional, connectionless IP service; 203 * reacts efficiently to topological changes and traffic demands 204 while maintaining effective routing in a mobile networking 205 context. 207 The working group will also consider issues pertaining to addressing, 208 security, and interaction/interfacing with lower and upper layer 209 protocols. In the longer term, the group may look at the issues of 210 layering more advanced mobility services on top of the initial 211 unicast routing developed. These longer term issues will likely 212 include investigating multicast and QoS extensions for a dynamic, 213 mobile area. 215 5. IP-Layer Mobile Routing 217 An improved mobile routing capability at the IP layer can provide a 218 benefit similar to the intention of the original Internet, viz. "an 219 interoperable internetworking capability over a heterogeneous 220 networking infrastructure". In this case, the infrastructure is 221 wireless, rather than hardwired, consisting of multiple wireless 222 technologies, channel access protocols, etc. Improved IP routing and 223 related networking services provide the glue to preserve the 224 integrity of the mobile internetwork segment in this more dynamic 225 environment. 227 In other words, a real benefit to using IP-level routing in a MANET 228 is to provide network-level consistency for multihop networks 229 composed of nodes using a *mixture* of physical-layer media; i.e. a 230 mixture of what are commonly thought of as subnet technologies. A 231 MANET node principally consists of a router, which may be physically 232 attached to multiple IP hosts (or IP-addressable devices), which has 233 potentially *multiple* wireless interfaces--each interface using a 234 *different* wireless technology. Thus, a MANET node with interfaces 235 using technologies A and B can communicate with any other MANET node 236 possessing an interface with technology A or B. The multihop 237 connectivity of technology A forms a physical-layer multihop 238 topology, the multihop connectivity of technology B forms *another* 239 physical-layer topology (which may differ from that of A's topology), 240 and the *union* of these topologies forms another topology (in graph 241 theoretic terms--a multigraph), termed the "IP routing fabric", of 242 the MANET. MANET nodes making routing decisions using the IP fabric 243 can intercommunicate using either or both physical-layer topologies 244 simultaneously. As new physical-layer technologies are developed, 245 new device drivers can be written and another physical-layer multihop 246 topology can be seamlessly added to the IP fabric. Likewise, older 247 technologies can easily be dropped. Such is the functionality and 248 architectural flexibility that IP-layer routing can support, which 249 brings with it hardware economies of scale. 251 The concept of a "router ID" (separate and apart from IP addressing) 252 is crucial to supporting the multigraph topology of the routing 253 fabric. It is what *unifies* a set of wireless IP interfaces (each 254 with their own IP address) and identifies them as belonging to the 255 same mobile platform. This approach permits maximum flexibility in 256 address assignment, and does not require that all IP addresses 257 attached to a given router fall under a common CIDR prefix. Router 258 IDs are used at the IP layer for routing computations. To enable IP 259 routing to hosts associated with the router, the subnet mask(s) 260 (encompassing the hosts on the mobile platform) should be advertised 261 with the router ID to permit routing table construction. 263 5.1. Interaction with Standard IP Routing 265 In the near term, it is currently envisioned that MANETs will 266 function as *stub* networks, meaning that all traffic carried by 267 MANET nodes must either be sourced or sinked within the MANET. 268 Because of bandwidth and possibly power constraints, MANETs are not 269 presently envisioned to function as *transit* networks carrying 270 traffic which enters and then leaves the MANET (although this 271 restriction may be removed by subsequent technology advances). This 272 substantially reduces the amount of route advertisement required for 273 interoperation with the existing fixed Internet. For stub operation, 274 routing interoperability in the near term may be achieved using some 275 combination of mechanisms such as MANET-based anycast and mobile IP. 276 Future interoperability may be achieved using mechanisms other than 277 mobile IP. 279 Interaction with Standard IP Routing will be greatly facilitated by 280 usage of a common MANET addressing approach by all MANET routing 281 protocols. Development of such an approach is underway which permits 282 routing through a multi-technology fabric, permits multiple hosts per 283 router and ensures long-term interoperability through adherence to 284 the IP addressing architecture. Supporting these features appears 285 only to require identifying host and router interfaces with IP 286 addresses, identifying a router with a separate Router ID, and 287 permitting routers to have multiple wired and wireless interfaces. 289 6. MANET Routing Protocol Performance Issues 290 To judge the merit of a routing protocol, one needs metrics--both 291 qualitative and quantitative--with which to measure its suitability 292 and performance. These metrics should be *independent* of any given 293 routing protocol. 295 The following is a list of desirable qualitative properties of manet 296 routing protocols. 298 1) Distributed operation: This is an essential property, but it 299 should be stated nonetheless. 301 2) Loop-freedom: Not required per se in light of certain 302 quantitative measures (performance criteria), but generally 303 desirable to avoid problems such as worst-case phenomena, e.g. a 304 small fraction of packets spinning around in the network for 305 arbitrary time periods. Ad hoc solutions such as TTL values can 306 bound the problem, but a more structured and well-formed approach 307 is generally desirable as it usually leads to better overall 308 performance. 310 3) Demand-based operation: Instead of assuming an uniform traffic 311 distribution within the network (and maintaining routing between 312 all nodes at all times), let the routing algorithm adapt to the 313 traffic pattern on a demand or need basis. If this is done 314 intelligently, it will utilize network energy and bandwidth 315 resources more efficiently. 317 4) Security: Without some form of network-level or link-layer 318 security, a MANET routing protocol is vulnerable to many forms of 319 attack. It may be relatively simple to snoop network traffic, 320 replay transmissions, manipulate packet headers, and redirect 321 routing messages, within a wireless network without appropriate 322 security provisions. While these concerns exist within wired 323 infrastructures and routing protocols as well, maintaining the 324 "physical" security of of the transmission media is harder in 325 practice with MANETs. Sufficient security protection to prohibit 326 disruption of modification of protocol operation is desired. This 327 may be somewhat orthogonal to any particular routing protocol 328 approach, e.g. through the application of IP Security techniques. 330 5) "Sleep" period operation: As a result of energy conservation, 331 or some other need to be inactive, nodes of a MANET may stop 332 transmitting and/or receiving (even receiving requires power) for 333 arbitrary time periods. A routing protocol should be able to 334 accommodate such sleep periods without overly adverse 335 consequences. This property may require close coupling with the 336 link-layer protocol through a standardized interface. 338 6) Unidirectional link support: Bidirectional links are typically 339 assumed in the design of routing algorithms, and many algorithms 340 are incapable of functioning properly over unidirectional links. 341 Nevertheless, unidirectional links can and do occur in wireless 342 networks. Oftentimes, a sufficient number of duplex links exist so 343 that usage of unidirectional links is of limited added value. 344 However, in situations where a pair of unidirectional links (in 345 opposite directions) form the only bidirectional connection 346 between two ad hoc clusters, the ability to make use of them is 347 valuable. 349 The following is a list of quantitative metrics that can be used to 350 assess the performance of any routing protocol. 352 1) End-to-end data throughput and delay: Statistical measures of 353 data routing performance (e.g., means, variances, distributions) 354 are important. These are the measures of a routing policy's 355 effectiveness--how well it does its job--as measured from the 356 *external* perspective of other policies that make use of routing. 358 2) Route Acquisition Time: A particular form of *external* end- 359 to-end delay measurement--of particular concern with "on demand" 360 routing algorithms--is the time required to establish route(s) 361 when requested. 363 3) Percentage Out-of-Order Delivery: An external measure of 364 connectionless routing performance of particular interest to 365 transport layer protocols such as TCP which prefer in-order 366 delivery. 368 4) Efficiency: If data routing effectiveness is the external 369 measure of a policy's performance, efficiency is the *internal* 370 measure of its effectiveness. To achieve a given level of data 371 routing performance, two different policies can expend differing 372 amounts of overhead, depending on their internal efficiency. 373 Protocol efficiency may or may not directly affect data routing 374 performance. If control and data traffic must share the same 375 channel, and the channel's capacity is limited, then excessive 376 control traffic often impacts data routing performance. 378 It is useful to track two ratios that illuminate the *internal* 379 efficiency of a protocol in doing its job (there may be others 380 that the authors have not considered): 382 * Average number of data bits transmitted/data bit delivered-- 383 this can be thought of as a measure of the efficiency of 384 delivering data within the network. 386 * Average number of control bits transmitted/data bit 387 delivered--this measures the efficiency of the protocol in 388 expending control overhead to delivery data packets. Note that 389 this should include not only the bits in the routing control 390 packets, but also the bits in the header of the data packets. 391 In other words, anything that is not data is control overhead, 392 and should be counted in the control portion of the algorithm. 394 Also, we must consider the networking *context* in which a protocol's 395 performance is measured. Essential parameters that should be varied 396 include: 398 1) Network size--measured in the number of nodes 400 2) Network connectivity--the average degree of a node (i.e. the 401 average number of neighbors of a node) 403 3) Topological rate of change--the speed with which a network's 404 topology is changing 406 4) Link capacity--effective link speed measured in bits/second, 407 after accounting for losses due to multiple access, coding, 408 framing, etc. 410 5) Fraction of unidirectional links--how effectively does a 411 protocol perform as a function of the presence of unidirectional 412 links? 414 6) Traffic patterns--how effective is a protocol in adapting to 415 non-uniform or bursty traffic patterns? 417 7) Mobility--when, and under what circumstances, is temporal and 418 spatial topological correlation relevant to the performance of a 419 routing protocol? In these cases, what is the most appropriate 420 model for simulating node mobility in a MANET? 422 8) Fraction and frequency of sleeping nodes--how does a protocol 423 perform in the presence of sleeping and awakening nodes? 425 A MANET protocol should function effectively over a wide range of 426 networking contexts--from small, collaborative, ad hoc groups to 427 larger mobile, multihop networks. The preceding discussion of 428 characteristics and evaluation metrics somewhat differentiate MANETs 429 from traditional, hardwired, multihop networks. The wireless 430 networking environment is one of scarcity rather than abundance, 431 wherein bandwidth is relatively limited, and energy may be as well. 433 In summary, the networking opportunities for MANETs are intriguing 434 and the engineering tradeoffs are many and challenging. A diverse 435 set of performance issues requires new protocols for network control. 436 A question which arises is "how should the *goodness* of a policy be 437 measured?". To help answer that, we proposed here an outline of 438 protocol evaluation issues that highlight performance metrics that 439 can help promote meaningful comparisons and assessments of protocol 440 performance. It should be recognized that a routing protocol tends 441 to be well-suited for particular network contexts, and less well- 442 suited for others. In putting forth a description of a protocol, both 443 its *advantages* and *limitations* should be mentioned so that the 444 appropriate networking context(s) for its usage can be identified. 445 These attributes of a protocol can typically be expressed 446 *qualitatively*, e.g., whether the protocol can or cannot support 447 shortest-path routing. Qualitative descriptions of this nature 448 permit broad classification of protocols, and form a basis for more 449 detailed *quantitative* assessments of protocol performance. In 450 future documents, the group may put forth candidate recommendations 451 regarding protocol design for MANETs. The metrics and the philosophy 452 presented within this document are expected to continue to evolve as 453 MANET technology and related efforts mature. 455 7. Security Considerations 457 Mobile wireless networks are generally more prone to physical 458 security threats than are fixed, hardwired networks. Existing link- 459 level security techniques (e.g. encryption) are often applied within 460 wireless networks to reduce these threats. Absent link-level 461 encryption, at the network layer, the most pressing issue is one of 462 inter-router authentication prior to the exchange of network control 463 information. Several levels of authentication ranging from no 464 security (always an option) and simple shared-key approaches, to full 465 public key infrastructure-based authentication mechanisms will be 466 explored by the group. As an adjunct to the working groups efforts, 467 several optional authentication modes may be standardized for use in 468 MANETs. 470 8. References 472 [1] B. Adamson, "Tactical Radio Frequency Communication Requirements for 473 IPng," RFC 1677, Aug. 1994. 475 Authors' Addresses 477 M. Scott Corson 478 Institute for Systems Research 479 University of Maryland 480 College Park, MD 20742 481 (301) 405-6630 482 corson@isr.umd.edu 484 Joseph Macker 485 Information Technology Division 486 Naval Research Laboratory 487 Washington, DC 20375 488 (202) 767-2001 489 macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil