Network Working Group                                         T. Clausen
Internet-Draft                                  LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Intended status: Informational                                U. Herberg
Expires: August 15, 2014                 Fujitsu Laboratories of America
                                                       February 11, 2014

               Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management


   This document describes how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are
   typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as
   rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers
   running the routing protocol OLSRv2 and its constituent protocol
   NHDP.  Apart from pre-deployment management for setting up IP
   addresses and security related credentials, OLSRv2 only needs routers
   to agree one single parameter (called "C").  Other parameters for
   tweaking network performance may be determined during operation of
   the network, and need not be the same in all routers.  This, using
   MIB modules and related management protocols such as SNMP (or
   possibly other, less "chatty", protocols).  In addition, for
   debugging purposes, monitoring data and performance related counters
   can be sent to the Network Management Station (NMS) via standardized
   management protocols.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Pre-Deployment Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  Lower Layer Alignment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Interface Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.3.  Security Material  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  The Value of C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  How do we Manage MANETs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Internal Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  External Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  What and Why do we Manage and Monitor? . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  This Document does not Constrain how to Manage and Monitor
       MANETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

1.  Introduction

   The MANET routing protocol OLSRv2 [OLSRv2], as well as its
   constituent parts NHDP [RFC6130], [RFC5497], [RFC5148], [RFC5444],
   [RFC6622bis], [OLSRv2-integrity], is designed to autonomously
   maintain routes across a dynamic network topology.  OLSRv2 is
   designed so as to minimize operator intervention throughout the
   duration of a network deployment, and to allow for heterogeneous
   configuration of routers within the same network deployment: most
   configuration values are either of local significance only (e.g.,
   message jitter parameters) or, when they are not, are carried in
   control signals exchanged between routers (e.g., information validity

   All the same, a small set of configuration options must be
   established in each router prior to deployment, with some requiring
   agreement among all the routers within the same deployment.
   Furthermore, throughout the duration of a network deployment,
   external management and monitoring of a network may be desirable,
   e.g., for performance optimization or debugging purposes.

1.1.  Statement of Purpose

   Deployments of OLSRv2 are diverse, and may include community
   networks, constrained environments, tactical networks, etc.  Each
   such environment may present distinctly different requirements as to
   management and monitoring.

   This document does therefore explicitly not pretend to provide an
   exhaustive description of how all OLSRv2 network deployments should
   be managed and monitored - and does, specifically, not prescribe any
   management model.

   What this document does, however, is to present how some OLSRv2
   network deployments are managed and monitored, using well-established
   management patterns and well-known protocols.

2.  Terminology

   This document uses terminology from [OLSRv2], [RFC6130], and

3.  Pre-Deployment Management

   Prior to operation of an OLSRv2 network, or more precisely, prior to
   proper operation of OLSRv2 and its constituent parts, certain

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

   parameters need to be configured on each router.  The following
   sections describe the required pre-deployment management.

3.1.  Lower Layer Alignment

   Interoperability between routers requires alignment of lower protocol
   layers below OLSRv2.  In particular, all routers in the same MANET
   topology must be pre-configured to use the same IP address family
   (IPv4 or IPv6).  In a single OLSRv2 topology, it is not possible to
   mix IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, notably because [RFC5444] messages can
   contain either IPv4 *or* IPv6 addresses, but not both at the same
   time.  It is, however, possible to run two instances of OLSRv2, one
   instance for IPv4 and another one for IPv6, within the same network.

   In addition to the IP address family, other lower layer parameters
   may also need to be aligned, e.g., radio channel selections.  A
   single OLSRv2 topology may, of course, span different link layers (or
   the same link layer with different configuration settings such as
   cryptographic keys) when routers in the topology have OLSRv2
   interfaces towards these different link layers.

3.2.  Interface Addresses

   According to [RFC6130], and as used by [OLSRv2], each interface of a
   router must be configured with at least one IP address.  [RFC6130]
   provides guidance as to the characteristics of such IP addresses,
   including the (limited) conditions under which an IP address may be
   configured on multiple interfaces.

   While automatic configuration of IP addresses on router interfaces is
   not excluded, currently no address autoconfiguration protocols have
   been standardized (in the IETF) to accomplish this.  As a
   consequence, static configuration, or proprietary (as in: non-
   standardized) protocols ensure this.

   Note that this required pre-deployment of interface addresses does
   not include "external" IP addresses, i.e., IP addresses that are
   configured on local non-MANET interfaces or IP addresses from remote
   destinations reachable through this router (i.e., addresses for which
   this router serves as gateway).  These can be added or removed
   dynamically during runtime of OLSRv2.  Such local non-MANET interface
   addresses are managed by way of the Local Interface Set (as defined
   in [RFC6130]) and remote addresses by way of the Attached Network Set
   (as defined in [OLSRv2]).

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

3.3.  Security Material

   Security material (keys, algorithms, etc.) must be available for
   generating Integrity Check Values (ICVs) for outgoing control
   messages, and to allow validating ICVs in incoming control messages
   [RFC6622bis] [OLSRv2-integrity].

   The appropriate way of making such security material available is
   dependent on the deployment type.  For example, community networks
   (such as "Funkfeuer",, do currently not use any
   security at all.  Other deployment types may use a simple manual
   shared key distribution mechanism, or may use a proprietary key
   distribution protocol.  Tactical networks have much more stringent
   requirements for distributing key material, e.g., using manual
   distribution of the keys on encrypted USB keys, and with defensive
   mechanisms (up to and including mechanisms involving depleted
   uranium) if the keys are compromised.

   In general, Automatic Key Management (AKM) as well as static/manual
   or other out-of-band mechanisms, can be viable options for
   distributing keys.  Currently, no standardized AKM mechanism for
   MANETs exist.  If the IETF standardizes such mechanisms in the
   future, for deployment types where such is appropriate, these can be
   used for distributing keys.  Until such time, manual key distribution
   as well as proprietary mechanisms, prevail.

   The important point to make here, however, is that by whichever
   method (automatic/manual, dynamic/static, ... ) a key and other
   security material is made available, the security mechanisms of
   OLSRv2, as defined by [OLSRv2-integrity], will be able to properly
   use it for generating and validating ICVs.

3.4.  The Value of C

   The only pre-deployment configuration parameter that directly impacts
   protocol operation is the value of C. This value is used by each
   router for calculating the representation of interval and validity
   time, as included in control messages.  All routers in a deployment
   must agree on the value of C, as described in [RFC5497].

4.  How do we Manage MANETs?

   A deployed OLSRv2 network is, as previously discussed, operating
   autonomously, but occasionally with internal or external management
   operations being desirable, described in the following two sections.

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

4.1.  Internal Management

   Internal management describes a local process running on an router
   that automatically (i.e., without external messaging or human
   interaction) modifies the configuration of OLSRv2 based on different
   environmental factors.  For example, the HELLO interval may be
   updated according to the rate of topology changes measured (or,
   inferred: after all, the 'M' in MANET is for "Mobility") locally: if
   the rate is high, then a more frequent HELLO update assures that
   routes are more accurate.  At a lower rate of topology changes,
   network capacity and energy capacity of the router may be conserved
   by increasing the HELLO interval.

   Depending on the use case, many different automatic configuration
   agents can be envisioned.  As parameters in NHDP and OLSRv2 are
   either only used locally or, in the case of HELLO_INTERVAL and
   REFRESH_INTERVAL, are selected locally and then included in the
   messages exchanged between adjacent routers in their HELLO messages,
   none of these automatic local configuration methods needs necessarily
   to be standardized: different routers doing different things will

4.2.  External Management

   For the deployments described by this document (but see Section 6),
   external management operations are undertaken by a central Network
   Management Station (NMS).

   The MIB modules developed for OLSRv2 [OLSRv2-MIB] and for its
   constituent protocol NHDP [RFC6779] are verbose, in as much as that
   they expose for interrogation the complete protocol and router state,
   as well as enable setting all parameters (timer intervals, time-outs,
   jitter values etc.).  They do explicitly not enable setting the value
   of C (as that is required to be constant and uniform across the
   network, see Section 3.4), nor distributing security material (see
   Section 3.3).

   In some deployments, the NMS communicates with individual routers by
   way of SNMP - and, more commonly, by way of "proprietary" simpler,
   less verbose and (often) less secure protocols, and over UDP.  Note
   that this does not constitute a recommendation, but rather an
   observation that (apparently) SNMP has found less application in

   The predecessor of OLSRv2, OLSR [RFC3626] did not have an associated
   MIB module.  Many deployments of OLSR did not support network
   management operations per se (i.e., configuration-on-launch was the
   way in which routers in these deployments were managed).  Those

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

   implementations and deployments of OLSR that did support network
   management operations used a similar architecture to the one
   described in this document, but with "proprietary" protocols and APIs
   for parameters and router states, "proprietary" data-models, etc.  It
   can be speculated that the "proprietary" protocols used for
   communication between the NMS and the MIB modules on each router also
   for OLSRv2, in part, exist as inherited from the protocols used for

   Finally, it is uncommon to see an NMS permanently active in a
   deployed OLSRv2 network; rather, on an "ad hoc" basis an NMS is
   introduced into the network, parameters configured or state
   interrogated, following which the NMS disappears.

5.  What and Why do we Manage and Monitor?

   As indicated earlier, OLSRv2 and its constituent protocol NHDP, are
   reasonably robust with respect to parameter values: a deployment can
   operate with different parameters used in different routers in the
   same network.  That being said, adapting these parameters according
   to circumstances is (often) desired.  For example, in a stable
   network (such as a wired network), TC messages may be sent
   infrequently and with long validity times, whereas in a highly
   dynamic network (such as in a vehicular network) TC messages may need
   to be sent more frequently and HELLO messages for discovering the
   local topology (almost) continuously.  In a similar vein, the message
   emission intervals and the information validity times should also be
   commensurate with the available network capacity: millisecond
   intervals between TC messages, for example, will consume all
   available network capacity whereas hourly intervals will be
   inappropriate even for a static and stable, wired, network (by way of
   simply new routers arriving in the network, which will not "learn"
   the network topology before undue long delays).

   This adaptation may happen autonomously by a central NMS monitoring
   and adopting the parameters globally, autonomously by an NMS in each
   router, monitoring its local topology (and its stability) and
   adapting parameters locally, or by manual operator intervention.

   Given the dynamic and evolutive topology of OLSRv2 networks, a highly
   desirable property of an NMS is the ability to display and offer
   visibility of the current network status - for example, to display a
   graphical map of which routers are currently part of the network.  As
   a proactive protocol, OLSRv2 maintains, in each router, a topology
   map including all destinations and a subset of the links present in
   the network (particularly true in a very dense network).  A typical
   feature of an NMS is to inquire as to the topology map of a single

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

   router.  A slightly less typical feature is to inquire all (or, at
   least, many) routers in a network, with the purpose of presenting a
   complete topology map.

   In addition to actively monitoring an OLSRv2 network, erroneous or
   unusual conditions on an router can be flagged to management, e.g.,
   detection of an unusually high number of 1-hop or 2-hop neighborhood
   changes in a short amount of time, indicating potential problems in
   that area of the network.  [RFC6779] and [OLSRv2-MIB] facilitate
   proactively sending "notifications" (also known as traps) from the
   router towards an NMS.  The MIB modules defined in [RFC6779] and
   [OLSRv2-MIB] allow for defining both the threshold and the time
   window of how many times this erroneous condition may occur in the
   time window before the notification is sent to the NMS.  Once the NMS
   receives a notification, a network operator may investigate if there
   is a problem that needs to be resolved, e.g., by changing parameters
   via the above-described external management.

6.  This Document does not Constrain how to Manage and Monitor MANETs

   As explained in Section 1, this document describes how, what and why
   some (typical) OLSRv2 networks are managed and monitored as of early
   2014.  As such, the document is reflexive, not prescriptive: it does
   not stipulate requirements for how to manage OLSRv2 networks, nor
   does it claim to be a complete list of all management patterns or
   protocols.  Other ways of managing an OLSRv2 network are very well
   imaginable - now, or in future deployments of OLSRv2.

   As an example of such a "future management scenario", rather than
   managing and monitoring routers from a central NMS, a distributed,
   autonomous management system between multiple routers can be
   envisioned.  In particular, monitoring data that is used to debug
   network problems and to tweak inefficiencies could be distributed
   amongst a group of routers in the same network.  This would both
   address problems of single point of failure when using only a single
   NMS, as well provide additional information about groups of multiple
   routers, rather than a single router.  An example use for such a
   distributed information flow would be to identify areas of a network
   wherein, e.g., due to different router densities, message sending
   interval parameters could be exchanged and optimal values negotiated
   between routers, so as to obtain locally optimized performance.

   While such a management model is highly interesting, it is also at
   present entirely fictional - at least outside the realm of research.
   It is included to, both, indicate directions being explored (but not
   exploited), and to insist that the intent of this document is not to
   prescribe how MANETs are to be managed, in the presence or in the

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

   future, but to describe the (known) state of how MANETs are managed,

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the following people
   for intense technical discussions, early reviews, and comments on the
   documents: Alan Cullen (BAE Systems), Christopher Dearlove (BAE
   Systems), and Adrian Farrel (Juniper).

8.  Informative References

   [OLSRv2]   Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2",
              draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-19 (work in progress), March 2013.

              Herberg, U., Cole, R., and T. Clausen, "Definition of
              Managed Objects for the  Optimized Link State Routing
              Protocol version 2", work in
              progress draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-12, June 2013.

              Herberg, U., Dearlove, C., and T. Clausen, "Integrity
              Protection for Control Messages in NHDP and OLSRv2", work
              in progress draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-05,
              September 2013.

   [RFC3626]  Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "The Optimized Link State
              Routing Protocol", RFC 3626, October 2003.

   [RFC5148]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and B. Adamson, "Jitter
              Considerations in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)",
              RFC 5148, February 2008.

   [RFC5444]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih,
              "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444,
              February 2009.

   [RFC5497]  Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value
              Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497,
              March 2009.

   [RFC6130]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc
              Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
              RFC 6130, April 2011.

Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management        February 2014

              Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity
              Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad
              Hoc Networks (MANETs)", work in
              progress draft-ietf-manet-rfc6622-bis-06, November 2013.

   [RFC6779]  Herberg, U., Cole, R., and I. Chakeres, "Definition of
              Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol",
              RFC 6779, May 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Thomas Clausen
   LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
   91128 Palaiseau Cedex,

   Phone: +33-6-6058-9349

   Ulrich Herberg
   Fujitsu Laboratories of America
   1240 E Arques Ave
   Sunnyvale CA 94086,


Clausen & Herberg        Expires August 15, 2014               [Page 10]