First MANET is an overloaded term. A network can be Ad Hoc and not mobile. Also Bernard's questions are absolutely on target, each point is like a specific thread I believe for discussion. In another forum and body that is working the deployment of mobile networks for defense and disaster relief I am part of we have removed the term MANET completely for technical clarity and analysis, and replaced it with two terms being Network and Node Mobility and then Ad Hoc Networks. The two are orthogonal. This is not a negative to the fine work in MANET WG, the terminology was proper given the start date of this in the IETF many years ago. Also there are two commercial forces that affect deployment which will come back to us in some form as a standards body. First SI solutions that build ad hoc nets today and assume base station exists with radios, which I questioned at Autconf MANET in Paris and believe that assumption should change. The reason is sensor technology can now develop tiny base stations that can act as APs for the radios, thus changing how multi-hop convergence is approached (routing vs. node discovery) Second force are vendors building MESH network solutions using peer-to-peer mode. These two forces are not using Ad Hoc networks in the same way.
Also in the above referenced body we have removed the connotation of a "stub" network from both the lexicon or architecture view perspectives. The reason is that it implies a connection is permanent to a fixed network and that is not a good view for emerging Ad Hoc Networks that are also mobile. Regarding using Ad Hoc networks as transit networks is very important discussion, and the views in industry are mixed. I personally believe this must be supported for emergency preparedness reasons and I can come up with many others, and that the IETF community needs to develop Ad Hoc network specs, ops views, etc that include viewing Ad Hoc nets as transit providers. This will have much debate is my guess. The question I have now is what do we do with conversations from this list regarding feedback to IETF WGs? thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:54 AM > To: Bernard Aboba; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Re: AUTOCONF charter > > > > Just re-read RFC 2501, and I don't see mention of "multi-hop > subnets". > > > Can you point out where this is described? > > I don't think RFC 2501 is strong on that the networks > it describes are subnets in the Internet sense, although > that's widely assumed in the IETF MANET community, see for > example Section 7 of RFC 3561 or Section 11.1 of RFC 3626. > Multi-hop of course is covered in RFC 2501 - the first > paragraph of the Introduction introduces the point for > the first time. > > That a MANET should be a subnet (common prefix) is > primarily for the benefit of the Internet to which it > is attached, the MANET itself generally derives little > benefit from this (although there's an exception in > OLSRv2 for example, it will allow more efficient messages, > but that's still only secondary). Of course this benefit > to the Internet is important, which is one reason why > Autoconf should be useful. > > I would agree that spelling this out in a single document, > son-of-RFC-2501 if you like, would be beneficial. That > should be a task of the Autoconf WG and/or the Manet WG > (there's a major overlap of participants of course) rather > than a hurdle to forming an Autoconf WG and starting its > work however in my/our (for some value of "our") opinion. > > >> One additional point I'd note, is that MANETs attached to the > >> Internet are almost exclusively viewed as stub networks (for > >> reasons of bandwidth and reliability at the least). > > > > Is it an assumption that a MANET will only function as a > stub network, > or > > > is it an enforceable restriction? For example, is there a mechanism > > > that can be used to prevent a MANET from becoming attached > at multiple > > > points, becoming a transit network? > > A MANET may be attached at multiple points and still not be > a transit network; this is generally assumed. Current MANET > routing protocols are dealing with the issue inside the > MANET, and can handle the concept of multiple gateways. > Ensuring that the MANET isn't used as a transit network > is down to the gateways not putting any entries in their > routing tables for non-MANET destinations with next hop > in the MANET. This is down to the gateways knowing which > are MANET addresses (or those MANET addresses being unknown > to the non-MANET routing protocol used by the gateway > on its Internet side). This may be pre-configured in some > systems, but existing MANET autoconf work on which work > will be based assumes that if we have multiple gateways > that some sort of coordination between them is needed, > this would be easily picked up from that. > > > ******************************************************************** > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or > distribute its contents to any other person. > ******************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
