[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01                                                         
MANET Autoconfiguration (AUTOCONF)                           I. Chakeres
Internet-Draft                                                    Boeing
Expires: April 6, 2007                                         J. Macker
                                               Naval Research Laboratory
                                                              T. Clausen
                                                LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
                                                         October 3, 2006

                   Mobile Ad hoc Network Architecture

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 6, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).


   This document discusses Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs).  It
   introduces basic MANET terms, characteristics, and challenges.  This
   document also defines several MANET entities and architectural

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  MANET Architectural Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  MANET Motivation Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Qualities - Wireless, Mobile, Ad hoc . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.1.  Semi-Broadcast Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.2.  Fuzzy Neighbor Relationship & Extended Neighborhood  . . .  8
     6.3.  MANET Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Other Important Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  MANETs' Place in the Network Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Cross Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Deployment Taxonomy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Service Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Number of Peer MANET Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.3.  Example Deployments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

1.  Introduction

   A Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) consists of a loosely connected set
   of MANET routers.  These routers organize and maintain a routing
   structure among themselves.  These routers often communicate over
   wireless links and are often mobile.  MANETs' characteristics create
   challenges in several areas, and often require protocol extensions or
   new MANET protocols altogether.

   This document is focused on IP networking, though many of MANETs'
   concepts and issues span the protocol stack.

   This document is meant to complement [RFC2501] in describing and
   defining MANET.

2.  Terminology

   Much of the terminology in this document was borrowed from existing
   documents, to list a few [RFC1812], [RFC2328], [RFC2453], [RFC2460],
   [RFC2461], [RFC3513], [RFC3753], [I-D.thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-
   manets], [I-D.templin-autoconf-dhcp], and [I-D.ietf-ipv6-2461bis].
   Note that the original text for the terms is often modified, though
   we have attempted to maintain the same meaning.  In the future, terms
   defined elsewhere will likely be cited instead of included.

   This document employs the following definitions:

      any device (router or host) that implements IP.

      a node that forwards IP packets not explicitly addressed to

      any node that is not a router, i.e. it does not forward packets
      addressed to others.

      A communications facility at a layer below IP, over which nodes
      exchange IP packets directly without decrementing IP TTL (Hop

   Asymmetric Reachability
      A link where non-reflexive and/or non-transitive reachability is
      part of normal operation.  Non-reflexive reachability means
      packets from X reach Y but packets from Y don't reach X. Non-

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

      transitive reachability means packets from X reach Y, and packets
      from Y reach Z, but packets from X don't reach Z. Many radio/
      wireless interfaces exhibit these properties.

      If node X can directly exchange IP packets with node Y, then node
      Y is node X's neighbor.  Packet reception characteristics are
      often used to assist devices in determining the quality of
      neighbors' communication.

      A node's point of attachment to a communication link.

   Broadcast Interface
      An interface supporting many attached nodes, together with the
      capability to address a single link layer message to all of the
      attached nodes (broadcast).  The set of nodes receiving a given
      physical broadcast message are the neighbors of the node
      originating the message.

   Full-Broadcast Interface (FBI)
      A broadcast interface with reflexive and transitive reachability.
      All nodes on the interface can send and receive IP packets
      directly, all nodes are symmetric neighbors.  An Ethernet segment
      is an example of a FBI.

   Semi-Broadcast Interface (SBI)
      A broadcast interface that may exhibit non-reflexive and/or non-
      transitive reachability.  A FBI is a special case of SBI.
      Multiple access wireless radio interfaces are often SBI.

      a set of one or more links.

      The process of forwarding information to as many MANET routers as

3.  MANET Architectural Terms

   In MANET there are two important entities.  We define the following

   MANET Router
      a node that engages in a MANET routing protocol.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

   MANET Border Router (MBR)
      a MANET router that also participates in multiple routing regions,
      and often multiple routing protocols.  A MBR forms a border
      between its multiple routing regions.  A MBR is responsible for
      presenting a consistent picture of the nodes reachable through
      itself to each routing region.  A MBR chooses the routing
      information to propagate between different regions.

   In MANET there are several architectural scopes.  We define the
   following scopes:

   MANET Neighbors
      a set of MANET routers that is reachable in one hop.

   MANET Neighborhood
      a set of MANET routers that is reachable in a few hops, generally
      two hops.  These routers often have a large number of common
      neighbors and often compete for shared wireless resources.

      a set of MANET routers that is reachable via multiple IP hops.  A
      MANET is smaller than or equal to a site.

   If a link forms between two previously separated MANET routers or
   MANETs, the two MANETs will merge to form a single larger MANET.
   Similarly, if a critical link between two MANET routers is lost the
   MANET will partition into two MANETs.

   When discussing MANETs' connectivity to other networks, like the
   Internet, a MANET is bounded by MANET border routers.  That is a
   MANETs' MBR form a border between a MANET and other routing regions.

4.  MANET Motivation Discussion

   The Internet Protocol (IP) core design tenets -- connectionless
   networking and packet-based forwarding -- are ideally suited for use
   in highly dynamic contexts, such as MANETs.  Yet, some additional
   functionality is required to meet the unique challenges and
   opportunities present in MANETs.

   The initial motivation for MANETs was called Packet Radio (PR)
   networking [FL01].  In PR, each router is equipped with a single SBI.
   This is the simplest MANET router configuration.  Each router may be
   mobile, and the routers may be or may become spatially distributed
   such that all routers cannot communicate directly.  That is, two
   routers might require one or more other intermediate routers to
   forward (route) packets on their behalf.  In the example shown in

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

   Figure 1, for RT1 to send packets to RT3, the intermediary RT2 must
   relay the packets.  This implies that RT2 must receive the packet
   from RT1 on its interface and determine that it must retransmit the
   packet over the same interface as the one where the packet was
   received, in order for the packet to reach RT3.  This example also
   illustrates how SBIs differ from FBIs: from the point of view of RT2,
   both RT1 and RT3 are neighbors, whereas RT1 and RT3 are not
   themselves neighbors with one another.

         <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>   <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>
   Single       | <~~~~~~+~~~~~~> |
   SBI        +-|-+    +-|-+    +-|-+
              |RT1|    |RT2|    |RT3|
              +---+    +---+    +---+

   Figure 1: Basic MANET Network

   In addition to addressing nodes' asymmetric reachability other
   challenges exist.  In PR networks, shared wireless resources result
   in interdependence between nearby nodes, and these nodes often
   communicate directly or indirectly.  The dynamic wireless interface
   characteristics and node mobility often manifest as frequent network
   topology changes.

   PR networks also lead to several other architecture related
   challenges.  One challenge was to attach these PR networks to other
   networks, especially fixed networks like the ARPANET.  Another
   related challenge was how to deal with the large disparity between
   different node and interface characteristics.

   These PR network challenges helped stimulate the Internet Protocol;
   an architecture based on connectionless networking and packet-based
   forwarding that enables interconnection of heterogeneous devices over
   heterogeneous interfaces.

5.  Qualities - Wireless, Mobile, Ad hoc

   In MANET several qualities impact protocol design.  The most
   fundamental qualities are wireless interface characteristics,
   mobility, and ad hoc interaction.

   Wireless interfaces exhibit challenging characteristics when compared
   with wired interfaces.  Many protocols (e.g. neighbor discovery) do

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

   not operate in wireless networks with asymmetric reachability.
   Wireless interfaces also exhibit time varying performance that can
   significantly impact local communication.

   Mobility also exacerbates wireless communication issues, making it
   difficult to attain, establish, and maintain relationships between

   Ad hoc networking further compounds problems by allowing nodes to
   join and leave the network, or even form new networks, at will.

6.  Challenges

   MANETs characteristics result in many challenges.  These challenges
   reveal themselves in many forms, and MANET specific protocols must
   often be developed.

6.1.  Semi-Broadcast Interface

   Given a wireless SBI (with non-transitive and non-reflexive
   properties) and spatially distributed nodes, each node may have a
   different unique partial view of the MANET.  That is, each node may
   have a different set of adjacent nodes.

         <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>   <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>
   Single       | <~~~~~~+~~~~~~> |
   SBI        +-|-+    +-|-+    +-|-+
              |RT1|    |RT2|    |RT3|
              +---+    +---+    +---+

               RT1      RT2      RT3
   Neighbors * RT2      RT1      RT2
             *          RT3

   Figure 2: Semi-Broadcast Interface (SBI) Neighbors

   The possibly unique set of adjacent nodes in each node often requires
   nodes to forward packets out the same wireless interface as the one
   over which they were received.  Topologically, this act of forwarding
   out the same interface causes a packet to reach a possibly different
   set of nodes by traversing the wireless communication medium in a new
   location.  An example is provided in Figure 2, where each router is

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

   capable of reaching a different set of routers.

   The act of forwarding packets out of the same interface as the one
   over which they were received often results in duplicate IP packets
   being received at nodes with more than one neighbor, while also
   reaching a new subset of nodes.

6.2.  Fuzzy Neighbor Relationship & Extended Neighborhood

   Defining the process of determining a neighbor's existence, continued
   existence, and loss of existence in MANET is arguably the fundamental
   challenge in MANETs.  Neighbors are hard to define due to the
   expected interface characteristics: non-transitive, non-reflexive,
   time varying, and other wireless properties.

   Historically, two nodes are either neighbors or not neighbors and
   several simple mechanisms have been used to determine a neighbor
   relationship: single packet reception, acceptable loss rates, and
   simple handshakes.  In wireless networks the types of neighbor
   relationships expand, as do the mechanisms to detect the state of
   such relationships.

   In wireless networks, nodes may often have non-reflexive (also often
   seen called unidirectional or asymmetric) communication links.
   Wireless networks also experience significant time varying packet
   delivery, so simple loss rates may not be sufficient to define a
   neighbor relationship.  Similarly, as nodes move in relationship to
   each other past loss rates may not reflect future communication

   In wireless systems there is often a lot of communication connectivty
   between nearby nodes.  These nodes form an extended neighbor
   relationships that is referred to as a neighborhood.  A neighborhood
   is typically composed of several nodes, where each node densely
   connected to other nodes.

   These complex neighbor relationships do not sit well with certain
   Internet Protocols designed assuming an Ethernet like model to
   communication links (reflexive, transitive, and stable).  Given the
   unknown neighbor relationships, the addressing model often associated
   with a Ethernet link is not valid.  For example, in an Ethernet
   network routers are often told that a particular range of addresses
   are directly reachable.  In MANETs' a node often cannot make
   assumptions that a particular set of addressable nodes is always
   reachable.  Instead, nodes must detect and determine their neighbors,
   and handle the changes to their neighbors over time.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

6.3.  MANET Membership

   Given MANETs' characteristics (mobile, wireless, ad hoc) determining
   a MANETs' membership is difficult, if not impossible in certain

      /----------------------\        /----------------------\
      |        MANET         |        |        MANET         |
      |  +---+ +---+ +---+   |        |  +---+ +---+ +---+   |
      |  |RT1+-+RT2+-+RT3|   |        |  |RT1+-+RT2+-+RT3|   |
      |  +-+-+ +---+ +---+   |        |  +---+ +---+ +-+-+   |
      |    |                 |        |                |     |
      |  +-+-+               | Change |              +-+-+   |
      |  |RT4+               |   in   |              |RT7|   |
      |  +---+\              |  Time  |              +---+   |
      |        \+---+        |        \----------------------/
      |         +RT5+        |        /----------------------\
      |        /+---+\       |        |         MANET        |
      |  +---+/       \+---+ |        |  +---+  +---+  +---+ |
      |  |RT6+         +RT7| |        |  |RT6+--+RT4+--+RT5| |
      |  +---+         +---+ |        |  +---+  +---+  +---+ |
      \----------------------/        \----------------------/

   Figure 3: MANET(s)

   At one moment a MANET might consist of a certain set of nodes, and
   the next the MANET could partition into several MANETs.  Later it
   might re-merge or merge with a new set of nodes and form a larger

   To assist in coordinating among a loosely connected set of MANET
   routers, a procedure called flooding is used.  MANET flooding consist
   of disseminating a packet to all connected MANET routers.

   Certain routers in a MANET might connect to other routing regions.
   These routers are called MANET Border Routers (MBR), and they often
   run multiple routing protocol instances.  The MBR are responsible for
   choosing the routing information to share between the various
   attached routing regions.  The MBR should also present a consistent
   picture of the nodes reachable through them.

   As MANET membership changes, so does the connectivty of MBR within
   the MANET.  Therefore, a MBR may be challenged to present a
   consistent set of reachable nodes.  It may even choose not to share
   routing information about the MANET topology to other routing

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

7.  Other Important Discussion

7.1.  MANETs' Place in the Network Stack

   While the MANET WG is focused upon network (L3) routing, that does
   not imply that MANETs and their protocols are limited to L3.  Several
   previous and existing efforts are applying MANET protocols at various
   layers.  The challenges discussed above, exist independent of at
   which layer MANET protocols are deployed.  Of course, the protocols
   themselves may need to be retooled slightly to accommodate the
   information available to the deployed layer.

   MANET MAC layer (L2) routing, more often called bridging, works well
   in homogeneous wireless networks for delivering frames over multiple
   hops.  One example of L2 MANET is being developed in the IEEE 802.11s

   L2 routing/bridging hides the multiple L2 hops from L3.  This
   behavior can be advantageous as this network can transparently mimic
   an Ethernet, to some extent.  The ability to mimic Ethernet allows
   the L2 MANET to utilize existing L3 network protocols.

   L2 MANET does not enable heterogeneity.  That is, L2 MANET is not
   capable of bridging across heterogeneous interfaces.  For example, L2
   bridging cannot directly bridge two L2 technologies with different
   addressing schemes.  It can also be difficult if the frame sizes of
   two L2 vary, as this could require breaking a single frame into
   multiple frames of a different format.

   L3 MANET enables heterogeneous networking, as IP was built with this
   feature in mind.  Forming a MANET at L3 implies that the L3 protocols
   must handle the challenges presented in this document.

   MANET like protocols can also be used at higher layers.  One example
   is peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.  These networks have some of the same
   challenges as MANET, e.g. variable neighbor relationships and
   changing membership.

7.2.  Cross Layering

   In wireless networks, and especially in MANET, extended interfacing
   among the network layers (physical, MAC, link, network, etc) can be
   extremely useful.  Arguably, MANET may not be capable of successful
   deployment without some degree of cross layering.  For example, link
   layer feedback that a packet/frame was not able to be sent or that it
   was not received could be used by the network layer to indicate that
   a neighbor is no longer reachable.  This information and other
   extended interfacing could reduce, or eliminate, some upper layer

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

   messaging.  Further, it could significantly reduce the latency in
   decision making.  Note that though a certain lower information is
   valuable, it likely needs to be extrapolated or filtered before
   accurate assumptions about the network state can be made.  For
   example, failure to deliver a frame by itself may not be a good
   indicator that a node is or is not reachable.

   In networks with several different layers of MANET mechanism, the
   sharing of information across different layers can be even more vital
   to creating and maintaining the network.  For example, if a P2P
   network is run on top of a L3 MANET, the two networks can share
   information to use a similar optimized topology.  Similarly, they
   could share neighbor state changes to reduce the messaging or latency
   in making decisions.

8.  Deployment Taxonomy

   The present and future proliferation of inexpensive wireless
   interfaces continues to stimulate technical interest and developments
   in the area of MANET for a wide variety of deployment scenarios.  In
   this section, we present several characteristics for describing
   expected MANET deployments.

8.1.  Service Availability

   Nodes often expect certain services/servers to be available.  When
   describing a deployment scenario, it is important to specify the
   expected services available and the distance between the servers and
   the clients.  In MANET, nodes might assume a service is available
   locally (within one IP hop) or within a particular scope (one or more
   IP hops - MANET, site, global).  Nodes might assume in certain
   deployments that no special servers/services are available.  Finally,
   nodes might assume that servers are sometimes available, but their
   availability is not guaranteed or ensured.

   Different frameworks for autoconfiguration, network management, and
   intra-AS routing can be developed based upon the expected constraints
   and operating conditions.

8.2.  Number of Peer MANET Routers

   The number of peer MRs in a MANET is an important consideration.
   This number is not the complete number of nodes in a MANET (since MRs
   may support an arbitrary number of connected nodes) but a measure of
   the number of peer MR participating as a cohesive flat routing area.
   While the number of MRs does not define scalability of a MANET
   protocol, it is often useful discuss the number of peer MR to get a

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

   feel for maturity of typical deployment solutions.  For simplicity we
   define the following network sizes to aid in discussion:

      2-30 MANET peers

      30-100 MANET peers

      100-1000 MANET peers

   Very large
      Larger than 1000 MANET peers

   At the time of writing, small and moderate size peer MANET routing
   scenarios have matured and have reasonable testing and deployment
   experience.  These sizes can perform reasonably well in many cases
   without hierarchy.  MANET architectures can, of course, support
   routing hierarchies to improve scaling.  Large and very large MANET
   routing areas that are flat are still a topic of active research and
   are not considered here.  Existing MANET routing developments, such
   as SMF [I-D.ietf-manet-smf], have shown significant performance
   improvements and capabilities even in small peer router size
   deployments and experiments.

8.3.  Example Deployments

   Here we provide a short list of example deployment scenarios:

   Home, office, campus, and community mesh networks

   Disaster relief and first responder networks

   Sensor networks

   Range extension

   Military communications

   Automotive networks

9.  Security Considerations


Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

10.  IANA Considerations

   This is an informational document.  IANA requirements for MANET
   related protocols will be developed within the protocol
   specifications for MANET protocols.

11.  Acknowledgments

   Discussions and developments concepts and architectural issues have
   evolved over many years of discussion of related work within the
   MANET WG.  There are obviously many people that have contributed to
   past discussions and related draft documents within the WG that have
   influenced the development of these concepts that deserve
   acknowledgment.  The authors would like to thank all contributors to
   the MANET and AUTOCONF WG efforts and those that have helped in the
   review and content process.

      While not entirely complete the authors would like to in
      particular thank the following individuals for there discussions
      and contributions:

      Fred Templin

      Christopher Dearlove

      Charles Perkins

      Justin Dean

      Subhranshu Singh

      Tom Henderson

      Emmanuel Baccelli

      Dave Thaler

      Jari Akko

      Thomas Narten

      Seung Yi

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

12.  Informative References

   [FL01]     Freebersyser, J. and B. Leiner, "A DoD perspective on
              mobile ad hoc networks", Addison Wesley C. E. Perkin, Ed.,
              2001, pp. 29--51, July 2001.

              Narten, T., "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)",
              draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-08 (work in progress),
              September 2006.

              Macker, J., "Simplified Multicast Forwarding for MANET",
              draft-ietf-manet-smf-02 (work in progress), March 2006.

              Templin, F., "MANET Autoconfiguration using DHCP",
              draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp-01 (work in progress),
              June 2006.

              Thaler, D., "Multi-Subnet MANETs",
              draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-manets-00 (work in
              progress), February 2006.

   [RFC1812]  Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
              RFC 1812, June 1995.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC2453]  Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
              November 1998.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC2461]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
              Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2501]  Corson, M. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
              (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
              Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.

   [RFC3513]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

   [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

              RFC 3753, June 2004.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

Authors' Addresses

   Ian Chakeres
   The Boeing Company
   P.O. Box 3707 Mailcode 7L-49
   Seattle, WA  98124-2207

   Email: ian.chakeres@gmail.com

   Joe Macker
   Naval Research Laboratory
   Washington, DC  20375

   Email: macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil

   Thomas Heide Clausen
   LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
   91128 Palaiseau CEDEX

   Email: T.Clausen@computer.org
   URI:   http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/Labo/Thomas.Clausen/

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture               October 2006

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires April 6, 2007                [Page 17]