Subject: [manet] IETF 62 MANET WG Minutes

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:44:14 -0500

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://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/

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.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet