Re: [manet] Defining subnet models used by our protocols

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Abdullalam,

I think basing a routing protocol (like those in MANET and also ROLL) on
some standard definition of subnets is:
1)  not needed in my experience with virtually every deployment scenario I
have seen
2)  conflates the network topology with the pratical issue of providing
peer to peer route discovery and establishment

Don



On 6/4/12 12:17 AM, "Abdussalam Baryun" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Don, and All,
>
>I would like to know your opinion about why we don't define subnets for
>MANET?
>
>On 6/3/12, Don Sturek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On 6/2/12 11:21 PM, "Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Could we discuss why we don't define subnets models? I don't
>understand adding (+1). I hope the chair does not ask me to close this
>thread too :)
>
>The ad hoc autoconfig was proposed in 2005 and proposed-ended in 2011
>so living for about 6 years only. What was the reason for the proposed
>close of it? please read the DA Jari's reasons below.
>
>IMO it because it had low/no useful discussions and only produced one
>RFC which is RFC5889, why only one? what happend within 6 years?  IMO
>any WG should have more discussions, discussions are mandatory
>activity for WG. Not discussing issues is like ignoring the value
>input to group progress. Healthy discussions are more important than
>producing more documents produced, because discussions are really the
>source of correct documents (don't mean it has to be perfect, but
>should not be misleading). WGs should be compared in terms of the
>amount of discussions not in amount of documents forwarded/submitted.
>
>According to Chakeres and Maker (2006) [1] quoated below:
>
>[The autoconf WG is chartered to initially develop
>two documents. The first document is a document
>defining the MANET architecture and how MANET
>relates to IP networks and the Internet. The second
>document is to define the terminology, problem statement
>and goals for autoconf. These autoconf documents
>will be discussed on the autoconf mailing list.]
>
>That WG did not produce the definition of MANET architecture. Which I
>think is related to the subnet-model definition importance for MANET.
>So i understand the authors see the importance of defining something
>for MANET in 2006. Now, Do we have a network architecture definition
>of MANET in one RFC?
>
>> On 6/2/12 11:21 PM, "Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>Hello folks,
>>>
>>>I would be opposed to requiring the subnet model as a mandatory
>>>component of any current [manet] working group charter item.
>>>
>>>We have had at least ten years of experience showing that requiring
>>>subnets can derail practically any wireless network discussion within
>>>the sphere of applicability of manet protocols.  The reasons are many
>>>and varied -- and, I must admit, really very interesting.
>>>
>>>It was the death of another working group which really should have
>>>been allowed to go forward except for disagreements about certain
>>>subnet-related constructs.  Let's not consign ourselves to the same
>>>fate.
>
>In future the death of the WG will be because they don't discuss
>things on the list, or don't have what to discuss, please read the
>reasons mentioned by Jari Arkko below. IMO for the future, some day
>any WGs possibly will close and other days new WGs comes.
>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Charlie P.
>
>References:
>[1] Chakers, I., and Maker, J., 'Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and the
>IETF', Mobile Computing and communication review, volume 1, Number 2,
>2006.
>
>Best regards
>
>Abdussalam Baryun
>University of Glamorgan, UK
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>To: "autoconf at ietf.org" <autoconf at ietf.org>
>Subject: [Autoconf] closing the working group?
>From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
>Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:48:47 +0200
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>I have looked at the discussions on the list (or lack thereof). I also
>cannot see too many internet drafts on the topics belonging to the
>group's charter. I am very happy with the RFC that has been produced
>by the working group, but we also seem to have some actual protocol
>work happening elsewhere (e.g., in the context of the ROLL WG).
>
>I discussed this matter with the chairs and my co-AD, and we are
>wondering if it would be time to close the working group. I do know
>that there is at least one implementation team that is still in the
>process of describing their DHCP-based solution, maybe there are
>similar efforts on the distributed solution space. My proposal is that
>we close the working group and I'be VERY happy to AD sponsor all such
>solutions to Experimental RFCs as soon as we have those proposals in
>some reasonable shape.
>Thoughts?
>
>Jari
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>To: IETF-Announce at ietf.org
>Subject: WG Review: Ad Hoc Network configuration (autoconf)
>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
>Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:28:49 -0400
>Cc: manetautoconf at ml.free.fr
>List-help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
>List-id: ietf-announce.ietf.org
>List-post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
>List-subscribe:
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>,
><mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
>List-unsubscribe:
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>,
><mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
>Reply-to: iesg at ietf.org
>Sender: ietf-announce-bounces at ietf.org
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The
>IESG has not
>made any determination as yet. The following draft charter was
>submitted, and is
>provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to
>the IESG
>mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by August 3rd.
>
>+++++++++++++
>
>Ad Hoc Network configuration (autoconf)
>========================================
>
>Current Status: Proposed Working Group
>
>Chairs:
>TBD
>
>Internet Area Director(s):
>Mark Townsley <townsley at cisco.com>
>Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>
>
>Internet Area Advisor:
>Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>
>
>Mailing Lists:
>General Discussion: manetautoconf at ml.free.fr
>To Subscribe: manetautoconf-request at ml.free.fr
>
>Description of the WG:
>
>In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
>2501) may need to configure their network interface(s) with local
>addresses that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may
>also need to configure globally routable addresses, in order to
>communicate with devices on the Internet.
>
>Ad hoc networks present several new challenges. Unlike in traditional
>IP networks, each ad hoc node, besides being a traffic end-point,
>should be capable of forwarding traffic destined for other hosts.
>Additionally, nodes constituting an ad-hoc network do not share access
>to a single multicast-capable link for signaling. Many protocol
>specifications used in traditional IP networks e.g. RFCs 2462, 2463
>etc. do, however, assume that subnet-local signals (e.g. link-local
>multicast signal) are received by each of the hosts on the particular
>subnet without being forwarded by the routers defining the subnet
>boundary.
>
>The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to standardize mechanisms to be
>used by ad hoc nodes for configuring unique local and/or globally
>routable IPv6 addresses. The ad hoc nodes under consideration are
>expected to support multi-hop communication by running a MANET routing
>protocol, e.g. those developed by the IETF MANET WG. However, this may
>or may not mean that an AUTOCONF mechanism will be dependent on any
>specific MANET routing protocol. With this in mind, the goals of
>AUTOCONF WG are to:
>
>- Produce a "terminology and problem statement" document, defining the
>problem statement and goals for AUTOCONF.
>
>- Develop an IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration mechanism to be used by
>ad hoc nodes for configuring unique local addresses as well as, in
>cases where Internet connectivity exists, globally routable unique
>addresses.
>
>- Develop a stateful address autoconfiguration mechanism to be used by
>ad hoc nodes for configuring globally routable unique addresses, if an
>address providing entity such as DHCPv6 server is available.
>
>- Develop a mechanism to promote configured address uniqueness in the
>situation where different ad hoc networks merge.
>
>Issues and requirements related to prefix and/or address providing
>entities, such as an Internet gateway, will be addressed within the
>group to the extent that they are directly related to the AUTOCONF
>mechanisms. Security concerns related to AUTOCONF mechanisms will also
>be discussed within the group.
>
>The working group will reuse existing specifications whenever
>reasonable and possible.
>
>Goals and Milestones:
>
>Oct 05 : Submit "terminology and problem statement" document for WG
>review
>Oct 05: Submit initial I-D(s) of candidate proposed AUTOCONF mechanisms
>and design frameworks
>Feb 06: Submit "terminology and problem statement" document to IESG for
>publication as an informational RFC
>Apr 06: Submit initial I-D of "stateless autoconfiguration mechanism"
>for WG review
>Apr 06: Submit initial I-D of "stateful autoconfiguration mechanism"
>for WG review
>Apr 06: Submit initial -ID of "configured address uniqueness
>maintenance" for WG review
>Aug 06: Revise WG documents and review
>Dec 06 Revise documents based upon implementation experience
>Apr 07: Submit "stateless autoconfiguration mechanism" specification
>and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed
>Standard
>Apr 07: Submit "stateful autoconfiguration mechanism" specification and
>supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard
>Apr 07: Submit "configured address uniqueness maintenance"
>specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as
>Proposed Standard
>Oct 07: Close or recharter the WG
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IETF-Announce mailing list
>IETF-Announce at ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
>
>
>
>
>=====================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 6/2/2012 1:12 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> I want to discuss this subnet definition issue that was raised in the
>>>> 82 meeting, could we discuss about it please. Will we need to put it
>>>> in a draft or include it in our active draft working in progress,
>>>> please advise,
>>>>
>>>> Abdussalam Baryun,
>>>> University of Glamorgan, UK
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>> In WG 82 meeting it was mentioned (Bob Cole and Teco discussions):
>>>> BC>  that subnet-models are not defined But in DLEP it looks at two
>>>> subnet-models (different models; e.g. radio subnet-models,
>>>> sat-subnet-models). We are defining IP over a subnet, but the subnet
>>>> is not defined. Then we don¹t know how to define control protocols,
>>>> data-packet-formats, and managements-models without having a subnet
>>>> model in mind.
>>>> TB>  In sat-comms the up-link and down-link can be very different. So
>>>> for different nodes on same carrier can be different data rates, SNR,
>>>> etc. so it is important that DLEP include the link metrics, even if it
>>>> is a full connected subnet.
>>>> BC>  the subnet depends on the link of the subnet-underlying model,
>>>> The semantics of link up and down are determined by the underlying.
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>> ********************************************************************
>>>> 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.
>>>> ********************************************************************
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> manet mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Regards,
>>>Charlie P.
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>manet mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>>
>>
>>