[manet] Re: Proposed tweaks to charter text

Hi Juliusz,

> 
> Hi, and sorry for the delay.

My turn to apologize for delay, times fifty.
 
> 
> qHere are a few proposed tweaks to the charter text.  Most are fairly
minor,
> the only one I feel strongly about is the removal of the sentence about
the
> overhead of proactive protocols.  I also feel it's important to mention
that the
> reliance of PIM-SM on RPF disqualifies it from (most) MANETs, lest
somebody
> be misled into thinking that PIM-SM can be easily tweaked.

Many thanks for these. I have updated the draft charter text, incorporating
all of your proposed changes: see attachment. However, I have comments on a
few of them, which you will find below.

> 
> 
> OLD: the protocol for exchange for link-related information
> 
> NEW: the protocol for exchange of link-related information

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: (mixtures of fixed and mobile routers)
> 
> NEW: (mixtures of fixed and mobile routers, and of wired and wireless
links)

Applied.

> 
> 
> OLD: Babel and OLSRv2 meet this requirement
> 
> NEW: Babel and OLSRv2 meet these requirements

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: manual configurations or the inference of state through routing or
>      transport protocols does not allow the router to make the best
>      decisions.
> 
> NEW: manual configurations or the inference of state through routing or
>      transport protocols is not practical.

Well, depending on how dynamic the network and its environment are (in terms
of node movement, propagation conditions, etc.), an ad hoc network may or
may not be able to function based on exchanged layer 3 routing protocol
information alone. Applied anyway.

> 
> 
> OLD: The main advantage of reactive solutions is low protocol overhead.
> 
> NEW: (remove this sentence)

Sentence removed. However, does this mean that you are of the opinion that
reactive ad hoc routing protocols will under no circumstances have an
advantage over pro-active ad hoc routing protocols?

> 
> 
> OLD: Traditional multicast routing solutions (e.g., PIM SM) tend to
perform
>      poorly in mobile ad hoc network environments, due to high churn of
>      maintaining group membership state in the nodes in frequently
changing
>      network topologies.
> 
> NEW: Traditional multicast routing solutions, such as PIM-SM, are not
>      applicable to the MANET environment due to their reliance on RPF as
>      well as to the high churn of maintaining group membership state in
>      frequently changing network topologies.

Applied.

> 
> 
> OLD: homogeneous link layer / physical layer technologies.
> 
> NEW: homogeneous link and physical layer technologies.

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: The WG will explore multicast routing solutions in support of
>      heterogeneous wireless technology configurations and federated mobile
>      ad hoc networks.
> 
> NEW: The WG will explore multicast routing solutions that are applicable
>      in mobile ad-hoc networks and heterogeneous network topologies.
> 

Applied, although I was rather attached to the "federated mobile ad hoc
networks" formulation.
 
> 
> OLD: Multicast solutions for mobile ad hoc networks based on heterogeneous
>      wireless technologies
> 
> NEW: Multicast solutions for mobile ad hoc networks based on
> heterogeneous,
>      wired and wireless technologies

Applied.

> 
> 
> OLD: Exploring feasibility of Standards Track reactive routing solution
>      based on AODVv2
> 
> NEW: Exploring feasibility of Standards Track reactive routing solutions,
>      possibly based on AODVv2
> 

Yes, that's better. Let's not constrain ourselves unnecessarily here.
Perhaps the paragraph on reactive routing protocols in the main body of the
charter text needs to be changed accordingly. Applied.
 
> 
> OLD: Progressing DAT-metric specification
> 
> NEW: Progressing DAT metric specification

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: Babel extensions
> 
> NEW: Babel extensions and maintenance

Fixed. (Should the order be: "maintenance and extensions" ?)

> 
> 
> OLD: OLSRv2 extensions
> 
> NEW: OLSRv2 extensions and maintenance

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: DLEP extensions, DLEP corrections & clarifications document
> 
> NEW: DLEP extensions and maintenance

Yes, "maintenance" is more general and would cover a C & C document. (See
meeting materials from MANET session at IETF 110 for a discussion on the
need for such a document)  

Thanks again,
Ronald

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

The MANET working group is responsible for the standardization, maintenance, and extension of routing protocol functionality that enables the exchange of IP packets over wireless media, among network nodes that operate in a dynamic environment, both with respect to movement of nodes relative to each other and with respect to wireless propagation conditions. The ‘maintenance and extension’ part of the WG’s remit applies in particular to the standards track routing protocols developed in this group (OLSRv2, [RFC 7181] and supporting specifications) and in the Babel WG (Babel [RFC 8966]), as well as the protocol for exchange of link-related information between a router and its attached modem(s), DLEP ([RFC 8175] and extensions).

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 (mixtures of fixed and mobile routers, and of wired and wireless links) should also be supported by MANET specifications and management features. As far as routing is concerned, Babel and OLSRv2 meet these requirements.

When routing devices rely on modems to effect communications over wireless links, they will benefit from timely and accurate knowledge of the characteristics of the link (speed, state, etc.) when making routing decisions. In mobile or other environments where these characteristics change frequently, manual configuration or the inference of state through routing or transport protocols is not practical. The WG is responsible for the maintenance and extension of the dynamic link exchange protocol (DLEP) between the router and the modem.

Early in the history of the WG, both pro-active and reactive ad hoc routing solutions were pursued. This resulted in four RFCs with status Experimental, two of those specifying protocols of the pro-active variety and two specifying reactive protocols. Only one of the pro-active protocols was successfully developed into a Standards Track specification (i.e., OLSRv2). The WG will revisit earlier work on AODVv2, aiming to progress it to a Standards Track specification.

Traditional multicast routing solutions, such as PIM-SM, are not applicable to the MANET environment due to their reliance on Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) as well as to the high churn of maintaining group membership state in frequently changing network topologies. In recent years, solutions for efficiently handling multicast forwarding below the IP layer have gained ground. However, these solutions only apply to homogeneous link and physical layer technologies. The WG will explore multicast routing solutions that are applicable in mobile ad hoc networks and heterogeneous network topologies.

The MANET WG will coordinate with other Working Groups, such as the PIM and ROLL WGs for multicast support, as well as the Routing Area WG (RTGWG)and LSR WG on the general use of DLEP, as well as the IPPM WG on topics related to traffic classification.

Work Items:

* Multicast solutions for mobile ad hoc networks based on heterogeneous, wired and wireless technologies,
* Exploring feasibility of Standards Track reactive routing solutions, possibly based on AODVv2,
* Progressing DAT metric specification (RFC 7779, Experimental) to Standards Track,
* Babel extensions and maintenance,
* OLSRv2 extensions and maintenance,
* DLEP extensions and maintenance.