idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 15, 2014) is 3510 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6779 (Obsoleted by RFC 7939) -- Duplicate reference: RFC7187, mentioned in 'RFC7188', was also mentioned in 'RFC7187'. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Clausen 3 Internet-Draft LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 4 Intended status: Informational U. Herberg 5 Expires: March 19, 2015 Fujitsu Laboratories of America 6 September 15, 2014 8 Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management 9 draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03 11 Abstract 13 This document describes how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are 14 typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as 15 rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers 16 running the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) 17 and its constituent MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP). 18 Apart from pre-deployment management for setting up IP addresses and 19 security related credentials, OLSRv2 only needs routers to agree one 20 single configuration parameter (called "C"). Other parameters for 21 tweaking network performance may be determined during operation of 22 the network, and need not be the same in all routers. This, using 23 MIB modules and related management protocols such as SNMP (or 24 possibly other, less "chatty", protocols). In addition, for 25 debugging purposes, monitoring data and performance related counters, 26 as well as notifications ("traps") can be sent to the Network 27 Management System (NMS) via standardized management protocols. 29 Status of this Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2015. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 1.1. Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3. Pre-Deployment Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 3.1. Lower Layer Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 3.2. Interface Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 3.3. Security Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 3.4. The Value of C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 4. How do we Manage OLSRv2-based MANETs? . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 4.1. Internal Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 4.2. External Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 5. What and Why do we Manage and Monitor? . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 6. Typical Communication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 7. This Document does not Constrain how to Manage and Monitor 77 MANETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 79 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 84 1. Introduction 86 The MANET routing protocol OLSRv2 [RFC7181], as well as its 87 constituent parts NHDP [RFC6130], [RFC5497], [RFC5148], [RFC5444], 88 [RFC7182], [RFC7183], [RFC7187], [RFC7188] is designed to 89 autonomously maintain routes across a dynamic network topology. 90 OLSRv2 is designed so as to minimize operator intervention throughout 91 the duration of a network deployment, and to allow for heterogeneous 92 configuration of routers within the same network deployment: most 93 configuration values are either of local significance only (e.g., 94 message jitter parameters) or, when they are not, are carried in 95 control signals exchanged between routers (e.g., information validity 96 time). 98 All the same, a small set of configuration options must be 99 established in each router prior to deployment, with some requiring 100 agreement among all the routers within the same deployment. 101 Furthermore, throughout the duration of a network deployment, 102 external management and monitoring of a network may be desirable, 103 e.g., for performance optimization or debugging purposes. 105 1.1. Statement of Purpose 107 Deployments of OLSRv2 are diverse, and may include community 108 networks, constrained environments, tactical networks, etc. Each 109 such environment may present distinctly different requirements as to 110 management and monitoring. 112 This document does therefore explicitly not pretend to provide an 113 exhaustive description of how all OLSRv2 network deployments should 114 be managed and monitored - and does, specifically, not prescribe any 115 management model. This document also does not address management of 116 MANET routing protocols, other than OLSRv2 (and its constituent 117 protocols). 119 What this document does, however, is to present how typical OLSRv2 120 network deployments are managed and monitored, using well-established 121 management patterns and well-known protocols. In particular, this 122 document addresses several of the consideration from [RFC5706], in 123 particular Section 3 ("Management Considerations - How Will the 124 Protocol Be Managed?"). 126 2. Terminology 128 This document uses terminology from [RFC7181], [RFC6130], and 129 [RFC5497]. 131 3. Pre-Deployment Management 133 Prior to operation of an OLSRv2 network, or more precisely, prior to 134 proper operation of OLSRv2 and its constituent parts, certain 135 parameters need to be configured on each router. The following 136 sections describe the required pre-deployment management. 138 3.1. Lower Layer Alignment 140 Interoperability between routers requires alignment of lower protocol 141 layers below OLSRv2. In particular, all routers in the same MANET 142 topology must be pre-configured to use the same IP address family 143 (IPv4 or IPv6). In a single OLSRv2 topology, it is not possible to 144 mix IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, notably because [RFC5444] messages can 145 contain either IPv4 *or* IPv6 addresses, but not both at the same 146 time. It is, however, possible to run two instances of OLSRv2, one 147 instance for IPv4 and another one for IPv6, within the same network. 149 In addition to the IP address family, other lower layer parameters 150 may also need to be aligned, e.g., MAC as well as radio channel 151 selections. A single OLSRv2 topology may, of course, span different 152 link layers (or the same link layer with different configuration 153 settings such as cryptographic keys) when routers in the topology 154 have OLSRv2 interfaces towards these different link layers. 156 3.2. Interface Addresses 158 According to [RFC6130], and as used by [RFC7181], each interface of a 159 router must be configured with at least one IP address. [RFC6130] 160 provides guidance as to the characteristics of such IP addresses, 161 including the (limited) conditions under which a single IP address 162 may be configured on multiple interfaces. 164 While automatic configuration of IP addresses on router interfaces is 165 not excluded, currently no address autoconfiguration protocols have 166 been standardized (in the IETF) to accomplish this. As a 167 consequence, static configuration, or proprietary (as in: non- 168 standardized) protocols ensure this. 170 Note that [RFC6130] and [RFC7181] permit to dynamically add or remove 171 IP addresses as part of normal network operation. This applies for 172 local MANET interfaces, as well as for local non-MANET interfaces or 173 IP addresses from remote destinations reachable through this router 174 (i.e., addresses for which this router serves as gateway). Interface 175 addresses are managed by way of the Local Interface Set (as defined 176 in [RFC6130]) and remote addresses by way of the Attached Network Set 177 (as defined in [RFC7181]). 179 3.3. Security Material 181 Security material (keys, algorithms, etc.) must be available for 182 generating Integrity Check Values (ICVs) for outgoing control 183 messages, and to allow validating ICVs in incoming control messages 184 [RFC7182] [RFC7183]. 186 The appropriate way of making such security material available is 187 dependent on the deployment type. For example, community networks 188 (such as "Funkfeuer", http://funkfeuer.at), do currently not use any 189 security at all. Other deployment types may use a simple manual 190 shared key distribution mechanism, or may use a proprietary key 191 distribution protocol. Tactical networks have much more stringent 192 requirements for distributing key material, e.g., using manual 193 distribution of the keys on encrypted USB flash drives, and with 194 defensive mechanisms (up to and including mechanisms involving 195 depleted uranium) if the keys are compromised. 197 In general, Automatic Key Management (AKM) as well as static/manual 198 or other out-of-band mechanisms, can be viable options for 199 distributing keys. Currently, no standardized AKM mechanism for 200 MANETs exist. If the IETF standardizes such mechanisms in the 201 future, for deployment types where such is appropriate, these can be 202 used for distributing keys (with the obvious chicken-and-egg problem 203 of using the routing fabric that is being constructed to distribute 204 the keys to establish that fabric). Until such an AKM mechanism is 205 standardized, manual key distribution as well as proprietary 206 mechanisms prevail. 208 The important point to make here, however, is that by whichever 209 method (automatic/manual, dynamic/static, ... ) a key and other 210 security material is made available, the security mechanisms of 211 OLSRv2, as defined by [RFC7183], will be able to properly use it for 212 generating and validating ICVs. 214 3.4. The Value of C 216 The only pre-deployment configuration parameter that directly impacts 217 protocol operation is the value of C. This value is used by each 218 router for calculating the representation of interval and validity 219 time, as included in control messages. All routers in a deployment 220 must agree on the value of C, as described in [RFC5497]. Note that 221 since all MANET routers inside a MANET must agree to the same value 222 of C before deployment, C is denoted "constant" in [RFC5497] rather 223 than "parameter" as in this document. From a management perspective, 224 C can be considered as configuration parameter prior to operation of 225 the routing protocol. 227 4. How do we Manage OLSRv2-based MANETs? 229 A deployed OLSRv2 network is, as previously discussed, operating 230 autonomously, but occasionally with internal or external management 231 operations being desirable, described in the following two sections. 233 4.1. Internal Management 235 Internal management describes a local process running on a router 236 that automatically (i.e., without external messaging or human 237 interaction) modifies the configuration of OLSRv2 based on different 238 environmental factors. In particular, message intervals can be 239 updated dynamically and without external management interaction, 240 e.g., the HELLO interval may be updated according to the rate of 241 topology changes measured (or, inferred: after all, the 'M' in MANET 242 is for "Mobility") locally: if the rate is high, then a more frequent 243 HELLO update assures that routes are more accurate. At a lower rate 244 of topology changes, network capacity and energy capacity of the 245 router may be conserved by increasing the HELLO interval. In 246 addition to message intervals, minimum intervals can have a 247 significant impact on the operation of OLSRv2, and therefore need to 248 be adjusted with care. If, for instance, the minimum interval 249 between two successive HELLO messages (HELLO_MIN_INTERVAL) is set too 250 low, many messages may be sent within a short timeframe, potentially 251 leading to frame collisions or exhaustion of the available bandwidth. 253 Depending on the use case, many different automatic configuration 254 agents can be envisioned. As parameters in NHDP and OLSRv2 are 255 either only used locally or, in the case of HELLO_INTERVAL and 256 REFRESH_INTERVAL, are selected locally and then included in the 257 messages exchanged between adjacent routers in their HELLO messages, 258 none of these automatic local configuration methods needs necessarily 259 to be standardized: different routers doing different things will 260 interoperate. 262 4.2. External Management 264 For the deployments described by this document (but see Section 7), 265 external management operations are undertaken by a central Network 266 Management Station (NMS). 268 The MIB modules developed for OLSRv2 [RFC7184] and for its 269 constituent protocol NHDP [RFC6779] are verbose, in as much as that 270 they expose for interrogation the complete protocol and router state, 271 as well as enable setting all parameters (timer intervals, time-outs, 272 jitter values etc.). They do explicitly not enable setting the value 273 of C (as that is required to be constant and uniform across the 274 network, see Section 3.4), nor distributing security material (see 275 Section 3.3). 277 In some deployments, the NMS communicates with individual routers by 278 way of SNMP - and, more commonly, by way of "proprietary" simpler, 279 less verbose and (often) less secure protocols, and over UDP. Note 280 that this does not constitute a recommendation, but rather an 281 observation that (apparently) SNMP has found less application in 282 MANETs. The "Writable MIB Module IESG Statement" 283 (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html) 284 recommends to use MIB modules for read-only operations only, and to 285 use YANG/NETCONF for read-write operations instead. While 286 publication of the MIB modules developed for OLSRv2 and NHDP predates 287 this statement, it may be possible to translate read-only objects 288 from the MIB modules into YANG modules using [RFC6643]. A complete 289 YANG model representing similar objects as in the MIB modules could 290 be future work. 292 The predecessor of OLSRv2, OLSR [RFC3626] did not have an associated 293 MIB module. Many deployments of OLSR did not support network 294 management operations per se (i.e., configuration-on-launch was the 295 way in which routers in these deployments were managed). Those 296 implementations and deployments of OLSR that did support network 297 management operations used a similar architecture to the one 298 described in this document, but with "proprietary" protocols and APIs 299 for parameters and router states, "proprietary" data-models, etc. It 300 can be speculated that the "proprietary" protocols used for 301 communication between the NMS and the MIB modules on each router also 302 for OLSRv2, in part, exist as inherited from the protocols used for 303 OLSR. Aligned with the recommendations from [RFC5706], management of 304 OLSRv2 (in the form of the MIB modules for OLSRv2 and NHDP) has been 305 developed alongside the standardization process of OLSRv2, rather 306 than as an afterthought. 308 Finally, it is uncommon to see an NMS permanently active in a 309 deployed OLSRv2 network; rather, on an "ad hoc" basis an NMS is 310 introduced into the network, parameters configured or state 311 interrogated, following which the NMS disappears. Part of the 312 rationale for this is that in a MANET, network connectivity from 313 every MANET router to an NMS cannot be guaranteed at all times due to 314 the dynamicity of the network topology. 316 5. What and Why do we Manage and Monitor? 318 As indicated earlier, OLSRv2 and its constituent protocol NHDP, are 319 reasonably robust with respect to parameter values: a deployment can 320 operate with different parameters used in different routers in the 321 same network. That being said, adapting these parameters according 322 to circumstances is (often) desired. For example, in a stable 323 network (such as a wired network), TC messages may be sent 324 infrequently and with long validity times, whereas in a highly 325 dynamic network (such as in a vehicular network) TC messages may need 326 to be sent more frequently and HELLO messages for discovering the 327 local topology (almost) continuously. Note that for highly dynamic 328 topologies, an alternative to sending control messages very 329 frequently is to use long message intervals in combination with all 330 of the permitted responsive mechanisms (e.g., to send an externally 331 triggered HELLO when the local topology of a router changes) and with 332 low minimum intervals. In this case, it is possible though that one 333 control message may get lost, and then OLSRv2 needs to react in order 334 to avoid a long convergence time. (One possibility is to reduce 335 HELLO_INTERVAL to minimum for a few HELLO messages, then restore it). 336 In a similar vein, the message emission intervals and the information 337 validity times should also be commensurate with the available network 338 capacity: millisecond intervals between TC messages, for example, 339 will consume all available network capacity whereas hourly intervals 340 will be inappropriate even for a static and stable, wired, network 341 (by way of simply new routers arriving in the network, which will not 342 "learn" the network topology before undue long delays). 344 This adaptation may happen autonomously by a central NMS monitoring 345 and adopting the parameters globally, autonomously by an NMS in each 346 router, monitoring its local topology (and its stability) and 347 adapting parameters locally, or by manual operator intervention. 349 Given the dynamic and evolutive topology of OLSRv2 networks, a highly 350 desirable property of an NMS is the ability to display and offer 351 visibility of the current network status - for example, to display a 352 graphical map of which routers are currently part of the network. As 353 a proactive protocol, OLSRv2 maintains, in each router, a topology 354 map including all destinations and a subset of the links present in 355 the network (particularly true in a very dense network). A typical 356 feature of an NMS is to inquire as to the topology map of a single 357 router. A slightly less typical feature is to inquire all (or, at 358 least, many) routers in a network, with the purpose of presenting a 359 complete topology map. 361 In addition to actively monitoring an OLSRv2 network, erroneous or 362 unusual conditions on a router can be flagged to management, e.g., 363 detection of an unusually high number of 1-hop or 2-hop neighborhood 364 changes in a short amount of time, indicating potential problems in 365 that area of the network. [RFC6779] and [RFC7184] facilitate 366 proactively sending "notifications" (also known as traps) from the 367 router towards an NMS. The MIB modules defined in [RFC6779] and 368 [RFC7184] allow for defining both the threshold and the time window 369 of how many times this erroneous condition may occur in the time 370 window before the notification is sent to the NMS. Once the NMS 371 receives a notification, a network operator may investigate if there 372 is a problem that needs to be resolved, e.g., by changing parameters 373 via the above-described external management. 375 6. Typical Communication Patterns 377 This section describes typical (management) communications patterns 378 in an operating (post-startup) network. One of the key 379 characteristics of OLSRv2 is that is enables an efficient flooding 380 mechanism (denoted "MPR Flooding"). For some management scenarios, 381 this facilitates better performance by (scope-limited) flooding 382 management requests to MANET routers, rather than sending multiple 383 consecutive unicast messages. While the MIB modules developed for 384 OLSRv2 and NHDP do not support such broadcast operation (due to the 385 nature of SNMP), some of the proprietary management tools mentioned 386 in Section 4 take advantage of this for increased performance. 388 The below list of such communication patterns is not claimed to be 389 exhaustive, and depending on the deployment, different patterns may 390 be used. However, these patterns have been observed in many 391 deployments of OLSRv2 and its constituent parts, as well as of its 392 predecessor OLSR. 394 a) Inquire the state (complete topology graph, link states, and local 395 links - even those not part of topology graph) of a router. An 396 NMS would typically initiate that request. OLSRv2 contains a 397 number of "Information Bases"; basically, tables with rows 398 representing information about local interfaces, other routers in 399 the MANET or the topology of the MANET as perceived by the MANET 400 router. These tables are also reflected as objects in the MIB 401 modules and can be inquired via, e.g., GETBULK for getting 402 multiple rows in a single request. Depending on the number of 403 MANET routers in the network as well as the density of the MANET, 404 tables for one-hop and two-hop routers, as well as routers in 405 further distance, these tables can contain a substantial amount of 406 information, and so inquiring them will return multiple KB or more 407 of data back to the NMS. Given the dynamic topology and often 408 bandwidth-constrained wireless links between MANET routers, this 409 is not a very common operation in many deployments. Moreover, 410 this would typically only be required in debugging situations, as 411 during regular operations, OLSRv2 updates the state automatically 412 and reacts to changes (e.g., by triggering control message 413 generation). This type of operation can benefit from the 414 optimized flooding mechanism, by requesting the state from 415 multiple routers in a region of the MANET in a single request. 417 b) Inquire the history/statistics of a router. This request, 418 initiated by an NMS, is typically a small inquiry, such as "how 419 many local link changes have you seen within the past n minutes/ 420 seconds/hours". This may be very rare, or it may be several times 421 per minute per router for a while: if the NMS is trying to, e.g., 422 "tune" message intervals and timers, by sending this request to a 423 group of topologically close routers - until, that is, the NMS 424 decides that the topology has stabilized and will ease up. Again, 425 this feature of requesting performance related information is 426 supported by the MIB modules for OLSRv2 and NHDP. While SNMP does 427 not support sending the inquiry via optimized flooding, 428 proprietary protocols take advantage of the optimized flooding 429 mechanism, to reduce the number of unicast requests. 431 c) Change the configuration of a router. Other than in the above 432 case in b) (tuning), this really happens only when somehow a 433 router gets a new uplink to an external network, and either a new 434 gateway is added into the network, and/or a new prefix needs to be 435 distributed to the routers. The MIB modules for OLSRv2 and NHDP 436 allow to set all configuration parameters of each router. 437 Optimized flooding may significantly reduce the amount of unicast 438 requests, but are not supported by SNMP. 440 d) Visualizing the network as a router sees it. As in a MANET, 441 routers may move and link quality may vary due to link layer 442 characteristics, the network topology may change frequently. In a 443 naive way, this would essentially be the NMS setting up a 444 connection to the router in question, and getting a copy of all 445 routing protocol control messages to construct its own topology 446 graph as would have done that router. Typically, it consists of 447 the router sending a notification to the NMS when a topological 448 change happens, i.e., when either of its information bases change. 449 Even better, it consists of these notifications being "filtered" 450 to only send for those changes that actually impact the usable 451 topology. The latter case is supported by the MIB modules for 452 OLSRv2 and NHDP in the form of notifications (also called "traps") 453 that are send from the MANET router to the NMS. While these 454 notifications alone do not allow the NMS to visualize the 455 topology, they may suffice to inform the NMS of an unusual change 456 of the topology, and the NMS may inquire the current topology via 457 the process described in a). 459 e) Rekeying There is currently no (standard) mechanism for automated 460 key management. One of the reasons for this may be that it is 461 difficult to come up with a single such that will satisfy the 462 requirements for all the different deployments. However, in MANET 463 deployments rekeying is something that can be observed, e.g., as 464 part of the parameter configuration. The particularity of this 465 is, that it often is a "broadcast configuration operation" where 466 new key material is supposed to be sent to everybody, and not just 467 a single router, e.g., leveraging the optimized flooding mechanism 468 of OLSRv2. 470 7. This Document does not Constrain how to Manage and Monitor MANETs 472 As explained in Section 1, this document describes how, what and why 473 some (typical) OLSRv2 networks are managed and monitored as of 2014. 474 As such, the document is reflective, not prescriptive: it does not 475 stipulate requirements for how to manage OLSRv2 networks, nor does it 476 claim to be a complete list of all management patterns or protocols. 477 Other ways of managing an OLSRv2 network are very well imaginable - 478 now, or in future deployments of OLSRv2. 480 As an example of such a "future management scenario", rather than 481 managing and monitoring routers from a central NMS, a distributed, 482 autonomous management system between multiple routers can be 483 envisioned. In particular, monitoring data that is used to debug 484 network problems and to tweak inefficiencies could be distributed 485 amongst a group of routers in the same network. This would both 486 address problems of single point of failure when using only a single 487 NMS, as well provide additional information about groups of multiple 488 routers, rather than a single router. An example use for such a 489 distributed information flow would be to identify areas of a network 490 wherein, e.g., due to different router densities, message sending 491 interval parameters could be exchanged and optimal values negotiated 492 between routers, so as to obtain locally optimized performance. 494 While such a management model is highly interesting, it is also at 495 present entirely fictional - at least outside the realm of research. 496 It is included to, both, indicate directions being explored (but not 497 exploited), and to insist that the intent of this document is not to 498 prescribe how MANETs are to be managed, in the presence or in the 499 future, but to describe the (known) state of how MANETs are managed, 500 presently. 502 8. IANA Considerations 504 This document has no actions for IANA. 506 [This section may be removed by the RFC Editor.] 508 9. Security Considerations 510 This document does not specify a protocol, nor does it provide 511 recommendations for how to manage an OLSRv2 deployment - rather, it 512 reflects how some known deployments of OLSRv2 (and its predecessor, 513 OLSR) have been known to be managed. 515 With that being said, managing an OLSRv2 network requires the ability 516 to inspect and affect the internal state of the routers therein, by 517 way of mechanisms other than the protocol signals specified for 518 OLSRv2 [RFC7181] and NHDP [RFC6130]. 520 When affecting the state of the OLSRv2 routing process, a management 521 process can be considered as an "outside process" to OLSRv2 and is 522 then expected to respect (at least) the constraints given in Section 523 5.5, Section 5.6, and in Appendix A of [RFC7181], as well as in 524 Section 5.5 and in Appendix B of [RFC6130]. The example from 525 Section 4.1 of setting excessively short message intervals, leading 526 to channel capacity exhaustion and frame collisions, demonstrates 527 that such an outside process can harm network stability considerably 528 when not carefully protected against unauthorized or unintended 529 usage. 531 For both inspecting and affecting the state of an OLSRv2 routing 532 process by way of a management interface, great care is necessary to 533 avoid divulging information that should not be exposed, and in 534 opening additional vulnerabilities by way of the management 535 interface. In part, to be able to benefit from securing existing 536 management interfaces, protocols, and implementations, migration to a 537 standardized management framework is desired, and was one of the 538 motivators for standardizing MIB modules for OLSRv2 and NHDP in the 539 first place. 541 10. Acknowledgments 543 The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the following people 544 for intense technical discussions, early reviews, and comments on the 545 documents: Alan Cullen (BAE Systems), Christopher Dearlove (BAE 546 Systems), Adrian Farrel (Juniper), David Harrington (Comcast), and 547 Jurgen Schoenwaelder (Jacobs University). 549 11. Informative References 551 [RFC3626] Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "The Optimized Link State 552 Routing Protocol", RFC 3626, October 2003. 554 [RFC5148] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and B. Adamson, "Jitter 555 Considerations in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", 556 RFC 5148, February 2008. 558 [RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih, 559 "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444, 560 February 2009. 562 [RFC5497] Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value 563 Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497, 564 March 2009. 566 [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and 567 Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", 568 RFC 5706, November 2009. 570 [RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc 571 Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", 572 RFC 6130, April 2011. 574 [RFC6643] Schoenwaelder, J., "Translation of Structure of Management 575 Information Version 2 (SMIv2) MIB Modules to YANG 576 Modules", RFC 6643, July 2012. 578 [RFC6779] Herberg, U., Cole, R., and I. Chakeres, "Definition of 579 Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol", 580 RFC 6779, May 2012. 582 [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, 583 "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", 584 RFC 7181, April 2014. 586 [RFC7182] Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity 587 Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad 588 Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 7182, April 2014. 590 [RFC7183] Herberg, U., Dearlove, C., and T. Clausen, "Integrity 591 Protection for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) 592 and Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 593 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7183, April 2014. 595 [RFC7184] Herberg, U., Cole, R., and T. Clausen, "Definition of 596 Managed Objects for the Optimized Link State Routing 597 Protocol Version 2", RFC 7184, April 2014. 599 [RFC7187] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Routing Multipoint Relay 600 Optimization for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol 601 Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7187, April 2014. 603 [RFC7188] Dearlove, C. and T. Clausen, "Optimized Link State Routing 604 Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2) and MANET Neighborhood 605 Discovery Protocol (NHDP) Extension TLVs", RFC 7187, 606 April 2014. 608 Authors' Addresses 610 Thomas Clausen 611 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 612 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, 613 France 615 Phone: +33-6-6058-9349 616 Email: T.Clausen@computer.org 617 URI: http://www.thomasclausen.org 619 Ulrich Herberg 620 Fujitsu Laboratories of America 621 1240 E Arques Ave 622 Sunnyvale CA 94086, 623 US 625 Phone: 626 Email: ulrich@herberg.name 627 URI: http://www.herberg.name