Re: [manet] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Recharter Discussion

["Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY RDECOM CERDEC (US)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Will:

Please inline [RRR].

BR/Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY RDECOM CERDEC (US) <[e-mail]>; James Nguyen <[e-mail]>; Justin Dean <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [manet] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Recharter Discussion

Radhika,

To me, depending on how one looks at this, it boarders on either a
research item or a deployment item (addressing schemes that work between
ad-hoc and backbone, etcŠ).

Can you better define what you would like out of the engineer group?  Do
we need a protocol that operates between the tiers?

[RRR] Yes. A unicast protocol between the independent peers that form the hierarchical tiers (in this case, say 2-tier network: access and Backbone - the peering nodes that form the backbone may be cluster heads). That is , we need a routing protocol among backbone nodes using unicast.

Will

On 5/4/16, 11:09 AM, "manet on behalf of Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY RDECOM
CERDEC (US)" <[e-mail] on behalf of
[e-mail]> wrote:

>Folks:
>
>I am also interested in the broader framework of MANETs. The framework
>should include as follows:
>
>1. The fundamental network topology architecture of MANETs is
>peer-to-peer (P2P) by definition as all nodes move from one place to
>another with mobility patterns that are termed as "ad hoc" movements
>where each node independently with no fixed infrastructures, and they use
>the IP MANET physical routing protocols t(e.g. AODVv2) hat include
>broadcast and multicast.
>
>2. The large-scale MANETs topology architecture will be hierarchical al
>least of two tiers: Access MANETs and a Backbone MANET that connects all
>access MANETs. Each access MANET may use IP MANET physical routing
>protocol (e.g. AODVv2). However, the Backbone MANET may use "logical"
>routing protocol (such as, Key-based Distributed Hash Table [DHT]) that
>may use unicast among the backbone node peers (may cluster head). It
>implies that we need to develop (or choose or modified from the existing
>DHT) the Key-based DHT "logical" routing protocol with unicast that is
>suitable for the Backbone MANET.
>
>3. It implies that there will two kinds of routing protocol: Access MANET
>Physical Routing Protocol (e.g. AODVv2) and Backbone MANET Logical
>Unicast Routing Protocol (e.g. DHT-based routing schemes).
>
>Comments will be appreciated on the above topic.
>
>Best regards,
>Radhika 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: manet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James Nguyen
>Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:44 AM
>To: Justin Dean <[e-mail]>
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [manet] Recharter Discussion
>
>All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
>identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
>contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to
>a Web browser. 
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Justin Dean <[e-mail] <
>Caution-mailto:[e-mail] > > wrote:
>
>
>	I'll start things off by floating the draft re-charter which was
>presented in Prague.
>	
>	
>	The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing
>protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application within
>both static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due to node
>motion or other factors.  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 (e.g., a
>mixture of fixed and mobile routers) should also be supported by MANET
>specifications and management features.The MANET WG is responsible for
>the maintenance of OLSRv2, AODVv2, DLEP and NHPD. Of particular interest:
>border behavior between MANET networks and fixed IP network
>infrastructures, enhance AODVv2 gateway functionality; security
>enhancements, encryption security extensions for RFC5444.
>
>> + 1
>I'm interested in "border behavior between MANET networks and fixed IP
>network infrastructures."  Is there any existing work on this?
>
>	The MANET WG will standardize a multicast MANET protocol framework based
>on previous work and lessons learned for scoped forwarding within MANET
>networks.  As part of this framework the WG will produce a well defined
>MANET multicast forwarding information base.
>
>> +1  
>
>
>	The WG will produce an informational draft outlining challenges and best
>practices for deploying and managing MANET networks.The MANET WG will
>interact with the PIM working group on issues relating to the multicast
>work.  The WG will also pay attention to other IETF and IRTF work that is
>addressing topics related to MANET environments.In summary, the WG will
>develop the following drafts:MANET Management Document (Informational)
>
>>  I'm still unclear what would be the in the document.  As of now, there
>>isn't a clear management solution for MANET (eg.g, cloud computing,
>>SDN).  As for management protocols, RESTCONF will soon be standardized,
>>but transport needs to be addressed for MANET.  CoMI seems to be a good
>>fit for MANET, but it'll be far from being matured.  Anyhow, if we work
>>and publish this document, it'll be out of date in a year or two.  I can
>>volunteer to work on this, but I need some guidance.
>
>
>On a separate note, for all future protocols, will we continue to develop
>MIB or YANG?  
>
>
>	MANET Maintenance  - RFC5444 Security extension (Standards) - Enhanced
>AODVv2 gateway extension (Standards)MANET Multicast - Multicast FIB
>(Standards)This will likely be considered too broad to pass.  We will
>likely need to cut some and focus the work.  For me personally I know I
>have the time and backing to work on the Multicast piece.  Justin
>
>	_______________________________________________
>	manet mailing list
>	[e-mail] < Caution-mailto:[e-mail] >
>	Caution-https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet <
>Caution-https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >
>	
>	
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>James Nguyen
>Email: [e-mail] <
>Caution-mailto:[e-mail] >
>_______________________________________________
>manet mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet