[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07                          Informational
MANET Autoconfiguration (AUTOCONF)                           I. Chakeres
Internet-Draft                                                  Motorola
Intended status: Informational                                 J. Macker
Expires: May 11, 2008                          Naval Research Laboratory
                                                              T. Clausen
                                                LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
                                                        November 8, 2007

                   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 May 11, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


   This document discusses Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs).  It presents
   the initial motivation for MANET and describes unaccustomed
   characteristics and challenges.  It also defines a MANET, other MANET
   entities, and MANET architectural concepts.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Borrowed Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  MANET Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  MANET Motivation Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Packet Radio Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Packet Radio Networks and the Internet . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Packet Radio Networks and MANETs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  MANET Interface Characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Qualities - Wireless, Mobile, Ad hoc . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.1.  Semi-Broadcast Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.2.  Fuzzy Relationships Between Nearby MANET Routers &
               MANET Routers' Extended Neighborhoods  . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.3.  MANET Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Addressing & the MANET Prefix Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  General Address Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  MANET Interface Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.3.  Routers and Hosts in a MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  MANETs' Place in the Network Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  Sharing of Information Across Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  Deployment Taxonomy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.1.  Service Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.2.  Number of MANET Routers in a MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

1.  Introduction

   A Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (MANET) consists of a loosely connected
   domain of routers.  A MANET is characterized by inclusion of one or
   more MANET interfaces; interfaces that are distinguished by their
   potentially significant time-vary asymmetric reachability amongst
   neighboring routers.  These routers organize and maintain a routing
   structure among themselves.  These routers may communicate over
   dynamic wireless channels with asymmetric reachability, may be
   mobile, and may join and leave the network at any time.  These
   MANETs' characteristics create challenges in several areas.

   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

   Owing to the fact that a MANET, as described in this document, is an
   instance of an IP network, much of the terminology employed in this
   document is borrowed from existing documents.  Some of the documents
   that contain relevant terminology are [RFC1812], [RFC2328],
   [RFC2453], [RFC2460], [RFC4861], [RFC4291], [RFC3753], and [RFC4903].
   In some cases the terminology is slightly abbreviated or rephrased;
   although, every effort made to retain the meanings.  Borrowed
   terminology is provided in Section 2.1 with the intent of providing a
   complete discussion of MANETs using coherent terminology.  MANET
   specific terminology is provided in Section 2.2.

2.1.  Borrowed Terminology

   This document employs the following definitions:

   Node (N)
      any device (router or host) that implements IP.

   Router (R)
      a node that forwards IP packets not explicitly addressed to

   Host (H)
      any node that is not a router, i.e. a host does not forward
      packets addressed to others.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

      a communication facility or medium over which nodes can
      communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below
      IP.  Examples are Ethernets (simple or bridged), PPP links, X.25,
      Frame Relay, or ATM networks as well as internet (or higher) layer
      "tunnels", such as tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 itself.

   Asymmetric Reachability
      Asymmetric reachability describes two properties of certain
      interface types' underlying communication facilities.  First, non-
      transitive communication means packets from X can reach Y, and
      packets from Y can reach Z, but packets from X may not reach Z.
      Second, non-bidirectional communication means that packets from X
      can reach Y but packets from Y may not reach X. Many radio/
      wireless interfaces exhibit these properties.

      In the context of routing, two routers are neighbors if one can
      send/receive routing protocol IP packets to the other without
      passing through any intermediaries at the same layer.

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

   Semi-Broadcast Interface (SBI)
      A broadcast capable interface that may exhibit asymmetric
      reachability.  Multiple access wireless radio interfaces are often
      SBI.  Note that since a SBI *may* exhibit asymmetric reachability,
      it also may not.

   Routing Domain (Domain)
      A routing domain is an interconnected network with a coherent
      routing policy and a consistent metric framework.

   Border Router (BR)
      A border router participates in multiple routing domains, and
      often multiple routing protocols.  A BR defines the border between
      its multiple routing domains.  A BR is responsible for presenting
      a consistent picture of the nodes reachable through itself to each
      routing domain.  A BR determines the routing information to
      propagate between different routing domains.

2.2.  MANET Terminology

   The following terminology is specific to MANETs:

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

   MANET Interface
      A MANET interface is distinguished by its potentially significant
      time-varying asymmetric reachability (e.g., SBI) amongst potential
      neighboring routers.  A more detailed discussion of MANET
      interface characteristics is presented in Section 4.2.  The
      addressing constraints for a MANET interface are discussed in
      Section 5.2.

   MANET Router (MNR)
      A MANET router is distinguished by having one or more MANET
      interfaces.  A MANET router may also have zero or more non-MANET
      interfaces.  A MANET router is responsible for hiding MANETs'
      challenging characteristics from nodes that are not MANET-aware.
      A MANET router with a single MANET interface is illustrated in
      Figure 1.

   MANET Neighborhood
      a set of neighboring routers that can communicate via MANET
      interfaces without passing through any other routers
      (intermediaries at the same layer).

      a routing domain containing MANET routers.  A example MANET is
      illustrated in Figure 3.

         <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>   MANET
                |          Interface
          '   MANET   '
          '   Router  '

              Figure 1: MANET Router with One MANET Interface

   Dependent upon the deployment and management strategy, coalescing and
   fragmentation of MANETs may be a supported feature.  In other words,
   if a communication path between two previously separated MANET
   routers or MANETs becomes available, the two MANETs may merge to form
   a single larger MANET.  Similarly, if a communication path between
   two MANET routers disappears and no alternative path between the
   routers exists, then the MANET may be partitioned into two separate

   When discussing MANETs' connectivity to other networks, such as the
   Internet, a MANET is bounded by border routers (BR).  That is, a
   MANET's BR form a border between a MANET and other routing domains.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

3.  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.

3.1.  Packet Radio Networks

   The initial motivation for MANETs was called Packet Radio (PR)
   networking [FL01].  In PR, each router is equipped with a single
   wireless interface.  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
   intermediate routers to forward (route) packets on their behalf.  In
   the example shown in Figure 2: for PR1 to send packets to PR3, the
   intermediary PR2 must relay the packets.  This implies that PR2 must
   receive the packet from PR1 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 PR3.  From
   the point of view of PR2, both PR1 and PR3 are neighboring routers,
   whereas PR1 and PR3 are not themselves neighboring routers of one

         <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>   <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>
   Single       | <~~~~~~+~~~~~~> |
   MANET      +-|-+    +-|-+    +-|-+
   Interface  |PR1|    |PR2|    |PR3|
              +---+    +---+    +---+

                   Figure 2: Basic Packet Radio Network

3.2.  Packet Radio Networks and the Internet

   Packet Radio networks inspired several architecture related
   challenges, including how to interconnect Packet Radio networks and
   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 present in different

   These aspects of Packet Radio networks helped stimulate the early
   development of the Internet Protocol; an architecture based on

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

   connectionless networking and packet-based forwarding that enables
   interconnection of heterogeneous devices over heterogeneous
   communication technologies.

3.3.  Packet Radio Networks and MANETs

   The router configuration in Figure 1 is the simplest MANET router
   configuration: a single interface exhibiting MANET interface
   characteristics.  Many other challenges exist, in MANETs and in
   Packet Radio Networks both: wireless interfaces imply shared
   communication resources which result in interdependence between
   nearby nodes, and these nodes often communicate directly or
   indirectly.  Wireless channel statistical dynamics and node mobility
   may result in frequent packet channel losses and network topology

   Figure 3 shows a general schematic of a MANET: each MANET Router
   (MNR) has one or more MANET interfaces, over which MANET interface
   aware protocols operate to ensure MANET communication; and zero or
   more non-MANET participating interfaces, either towards hosts or
   other networks.  Over these non-MANET aware interfaces protocols need
   not be aware of MANETs' characteristics.

       +-+  +---+ /      /|\       \ +---+  +-+
       | |...MNR---       .-.      ---MNR|..| |
       +-+  +---+ \    ,-(  _)-.   / +---+  +-+
                    .-(_ MANET  )-.
       Other       ( Communication )
       Nodes          `-(______)-'
       and         \|/             \|/
       Networks   +-|-+           +-|-+
                  |MNR|    \|/    |MNR|
                  +-:-+   +-|-+   +-:-+
                    :     |MNR|     :
                   +-+    +-:-+    +-+
                   +-+      :      +-+

                  Figure 3: Mobile Ad Hoc NETwork Example

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

4.  MANET Interface Characteristics

   Inheriting from Packet Radio as described above, primary
   particularities of MANETs are the characteristics and qualities of
   MANET interfaces, and the challenges these entail for protocol design
   and development.

4.1.  Qualities - Wireless, Mobile, Ad hoc

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

   Wireless interfaces often exhibit more challenging characteristics
   when compared to wired interfaces.  Many protocols (e.g., IPv6
   neighbor discovery [RFC4861]) were not designed to operate in
   wireless networks with asymmetric reachability.  Wireless interfaces
   may also exhibit very dynamic time varying performance (e.g., packet
   loss, data rate), and the factors have a significant impact on local

   Mobility can also exacerbate communication issues, making it more
   challenging to attain, establish, and maintain network relationships
   between nodes.

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

4.2.  Challenges

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

4.2.1.  Semi-Broadcast Interface

   Given a wireless SBI that exhibits time-varying asymmetric
   reachability and spatially distributed MANET routers, each MANET
   router may have a different unique partial view of the MANET.  That
   is, each node may see a different set of neighboring MANET routers.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

          <~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~> <~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~>
   Single          |<~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~>|
   SBI          +--|-+    +--|-+    +--|-+
                |MNR1|    |MNR2|    |MNR3|
                +----+    +----+    +----+

                 MNR1      MNR2      MNR3
   Neighboring   MNR2      MNR1      MNR2
   Routers                 MNR3

       Figure 4: Semi-Broadcast Interface (SBI) Neighboring Routers

   The possibly unique set of neighboring MANET routers perceived by
   each MANET router often requires MANET routers to send packets out
   the same wireless interface as the one over which they were received.
   Topologically, this act of forwarding out the same interface may
   cause a packet to reach a different set of MANET routers by
   traversing the wireless communication medium in a new location.  An
   example is provided in Figure 4, where each MANET router is capable
   of reaching a different set of MANET 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 by MANET routers with more than one neighboring MANET
   router, while also reaching a new subset of MANET routers.  Thus,
   duplicate packet detection is often an inherent part of MANET
   protocol designs.

4.2.2.  Fuzzy Relationships Between Nearby MANET Routers & MANET
        Routers' Extended Neighborhoods

   Defining the process of determining neighboring MANET routers'
   existence, continued existence, and loss of existence is a
   fundamental challenge in MANETs.  Relationships with neighboring
   MANET routers are hard to define due to the MANET interface

   Historically, two nodes are either neighbors or not neighbors and
   several simple mechanisms have been used to determine neighbor
   relationships: single packet reception, acceptable loss rates, and
   simple handshakes.  [RFC4861], for example, employs an initial
   exchange of messages to determine neighborship or absence thereof.
   In networks with MANET interface the types of neighbor relationships
   expand, as do the mechanisms to detect and maintain the state of such

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007


   Wireless network interfaces may exhibit unidirectional communication.
   Dynamic wireless networks may also experience significant time
   varying packet delivery between the same pair of wireless network
   interfaces, so simple loss rates may not be sufficient to define a
   neighbor relationship.  Similarly, as nodes (and, hence, interfaces)
   move relatively to each other, past loss rates may not reflect future
   communication capabilities.

   In MANETs' with SBI, MANET routers within the same small geographic
   region are often densely connected with other nearby MANET routers.
   These routers form a set of extended neighbor relationships.  This
   set is referred to as a MANET neighborhood.  A MANET neighborhood is
   typically composed of several MANET routers, with each MANET router
   being densely connected to other MANET routers.

   These more dynamic neighbor relationships do not sit well with
   certain Internet Protocols designed assuming a fixed Ethernet like
   model to communication links (bidirectional, transitive, and stable).
   Given the fuzzy neighbor relationships between MANET routers, the
   addressing model often associated with a Ethernet link is not
   logical.  For example, in an Ethernet network nodes are often told
   that a particular range of addresses are "on-link".  In MANETs' a
   MANET router often cannot make assumptions that a particular set of
   MANET routers is always (directly) reachable.  Instead, MANET routers
   must detect and determine neighboring MANET routers, and handle
   changes to this set over time.

4.2.3.  MANET Membership

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

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

      /----------------------\        /----------------------\
      |        MANET         |        |        MANET         |
      | +----+ +----+ +----+ |        | +----+ +----+ +----+ |
      | |MNR1+-+MNR2+-+MNR3| |        | |MNR1+-+MNR2+-+MNR3| |
      | +-+--+ +----+ +----+ |        | +----+ +----+ +-+--+ |
      |   |                  |        |                 |    |
      | +-+--+               | Change |               +-+--+ |
      | |MNR4|               |   in   |               |MNR7| |
      | +----+               |  Time  |               +----+ |
      |       \              |        \----------------------/
      |        +----+        |
      |        |MNR5|        |
      |        +----+        |        /----------------------\
      |       /      \       |        |        MANET         |
      | +----+        +----+ |        | +----+ +----+ +----+ |
      | |MNR6|        |MNR7| |        | |MNR6+-+MNR4+-+MNR5| |
      | +----+        +----+ |        | +----+ +----+ +----+ |
      \----------------------/        \----------------------/

                            Figure 5: 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

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

   As MANET membership changes, so does the connectivity of BRs within
   the MANET.  Therefore, a BR may be challenged to present a consistent
   set of reachable nodes.  It may even choose not to announce any
   routing information about the MANET to other routing domains.

5.  Addressing & the MANET Prefix Model

   This section presents an architectural model for MANETs which
   preserves the integrity of the conventional IP addressing
   architecture while allowing for the particularities of MANET

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

5.1.  General Address Architecture

   This architectural model considers MANET routers as simply routers
   with nodes possibly attached.  These attached nodes may be attached
   "behind the router"; that is, the router may be responsible for
   announcing the location of a particular address or set of addresses
   (i.e. a subnet prefix).

   This configuration implies that, from the point of view of these
   nodes and the applications running on them, they are not exposed to
   the specific characteristics of MANET interfaces.

   A MANET router can be delegated zero or more prefixes.  For example,
   if a MANET router is delegated a prefix p::, then subnet prefixes
   derived from this prefix (e.g, p:1::/64, p:2::/64, ...) may be
   assigned to the MANET routers' non-MANET interfaces(s), and nodes on
   these interfaces may be assigned addresses from within this prefix,
   and configured with this prefix according to the address
   autoconfiguration mechanisms governing these interfaces ([RFC4861]
   and [RFC4862]).  This concept is illustrated in Figure 6.

   MANET interfaces are specifically *NOT* configured with this prefix.
   The configuration of these MANET interfaces is detailed in
   Section 5.2.

       MANET        <~~~~~~+~~~~~~>
     Interface             |              Delegated
                           |              Prefix
                 '''''''''''''''''''''    ==========
                 '       MANET       ' <=== P::/62 =
                 '       Router      '    ==========
                 ''''''''' :         '    Assigned
                      :  ' :         '    Prefix
                      :  '++--------+'    ============
                      :  '|Loopback |' <=== P:1::/64 =
    ============      :  '|P:1::L/64|'    ============
    =    :     =      :  '+---------+'
    =  Other   =      :  '''''''''''''    Assigned
    =Interfaces=      :                   Prefix
    ============      :                   ============
                  +...+...........+    <=== P:2::/64 =
                  :               :       ============
           +------+--+         +--+------+
           |P:2::1/64|  * * *  |P:2::K/64|
           +---------+         +---------+

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

                Figure 6: MANET Router and Prefixes Example

5.2.  MANET Interface Configuration

   MANET interface specific behaviors are exclusively exposed to the
   MANET routers.  These behaviors may include asymmetric reachability,
   semi-broadcast interfaces, fuzzy MANET router neighbor relationships,
   changing MANET membership, rapid topology dynamics, etc.

   The following characteristics deserve particular mention, since they
   distinguish the configuration and behavior of MANET interface(s):

   Unique Prefixes
      MANET interfaces that are known to exhibit the above mentioned
      properties must be configured with unique prefixes.  The reason
      for this requirements is so that no two MANET interfaces are
      configured to appear within the same IP prefix.  One way to
      achieve this is /128 (IPv6) or /32 (IPv4) prefixes.  It is worth
      noting that prefix lengths shorter than /128 (IPv6) or /32 (IPv4)
      are possible on the MANET interfaces, as long as the prefixes are
      unique to a single MANET interface.  Note that the above
      statements are not an exception, but simply a clarification that
      MANET are no different from other networks in this respect.

   Link-local Multicast/Broadcast Scope
      On a MANET interface, a packet sent to a link-local multicast or
      all-ones broadcast address reaches the MANET interfaces of
      neighboring MANET routers, regardless of their configured
      addresses.  Link-local multicast/broadcast packets are never
      forwarded and since a MANET may span several hops, nodes cannot
      assume that a packet sent to a link-local multicast/broadcast
      address will reach all routers within a MANET.

5.3.  Routers and Hosts in a MANET

   The MANET addressing model presented in this section makes a clear
   separation between the role of MANET router and host in a MANET,
   recognizing that:

   o  MANET interface characteristics are only exposed to MANET-aware
      routers running appropriate protocols;

   o  nodes and networks/subnets on non-MANET interface(s) are not
      subjected considering MANET characteristics;

   o  applications on hosts and protocols run unmodified.

   MANET protocols are protocols developed to work on MANET interfaces

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

   and to be MANET-aware.  The MANET WG is chartered to develop routing
   protocols for MANET interfaces.  The Autoconf WG is chartered to
   develop autoconfiguration protocols for MANET interfaces and MANET

   Note that this addressing framework is similar to how routing in the
   existing Internet is structured.  Routers run their routing protocol
   over router interconnects with various characteristics to which only
   the routing protocols are privy.  On the other hand, hosts connect to
   routers over interfaces with well-defined characteristics.

6.  MANETs' Place in the Network Stack

   While the MANET WG is focused on 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.  Many of the challenges discussed above (with the notable
   exception being IP addressing) 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.

   One example of sub-IP MANET routing is MANET MAC layer (L2) routing.
   This type of routing is often called bridging, and may work in
   homogeneous wireless networks for delivering frames over multiple

   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.  On the other
   hand, this transparency may lead to performance problems.  For
   example, if the L3 protocols make heavy use of broadcast messaging or
   if devices assume that high-speed bandwidth resources are available.

   L2 MANETs do not enable heterogeneity.  That is, a 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 technologies vary, as this could require breaking a single
   frame into multiple frames of a different format.

   L3 MANETs enable 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 other layers, both above and

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

   below L3.  Another example is peer-to-peer (P2P) networks; these
   networks have some of the same challenges as MANETs.

7.  Sharing of Information Across Layers

   In wireless networks, and especially in MANETs, propagation of
   additional information across layers should be considered.  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 neighboring MANET router is no longer reachable.
   This information and other extended interfacing could reduce, or
   eliminate, some upper layer messaging.  Further, it could
   significantly reduce the latency in decision making.  Note that
   though certain lower layer 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 single
   frame/packet by itself may not be a good indicator that a node is or
   is not reachable.

   In networks with several different layers of MANET mechanisms, 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, or two network can
   share neighboring MANET router state changes to reduce the messaging
   or the 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
   participating nodes.  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.

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

   Different frameworks for autoconfiguration, network management, and
   routing within an Autonomous System (AS) can be developed based upon
   the expected constraints and operating conditions.

8.2.  Number of MANET Routers in a MANET

   The number of MANET routers in a MANET routing domain is an important
   consideration.  This number is not the complete number of nodes in a
   MANET (since MANET routers may support an arbitrary number of
   connected nodes) but a measure of the number of MANET routers
   participating as a cohesive flat routing domain.

   While the number of MANET routers does not define scalability of a
   MANET protocol, it is often useful to discuss the number of MANET
   router to get a feel for maturity of typical deployment solutions.
   For simplicity we define the following network sizes to aid in

      2-30 MANET routers

      30-100 MANET routers

      100-1000 MANET routers

   Very large
      Larger than 1000 MANET routers

   As of 2007, small and moderate size peer MANET routing scenarios have
   matured and have undergone reasonable test and deployment experience.
   MANETs of those sizes can perform reasonably well in many cases
   without hierarchy.  For scaling up to large and very large MANET
   networks, routing hierarchies, a standard technique for wired
   Internet routing, is a possibility.  While scaling design extensions
   exist, large and very large MANET flat routing domains are still a
   topic of ongoing active research and are not discussed further here.

9.  Security Considerations

   Each MANET router may not know its neighborhood a priori
   (Section 2.2), but it should determine its neighborhood dynamically
   and track changes as the network evolves.  Similarly for MANET
   network membership (Section 4.2.3), MANET routers may leave or join a
   MANET, and the MANET may partition or merge with others.  In addition
   to these issues, many MANET routers are expected to communicate over

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

   wireless interfaces; and the "open" nature of wireless communication
   means that nearby nodes will often be capable of sending and
   receiving MANET protocol packets.

   Without any security measures MANET routers operating under these
   characteristics will often expose protocol information to and accept
   information from nearby nodes.  Protecting MANET routers from
   disruptive nearby nodes can be performed by using confidentiality,
   data integrity, and peer entity authentication.

   Different deployments of MANETs may have very different security
   requirements.  For example, if a MANET is deployed for a military
   purpose, exposing the network topology to any outside party may not
   be acceptable -- whereas for a civilian deployment exposure of
   topology information may be of little or no importance.  Furthermore,
   different deployments may require different mechanisms to address
   security issues (e.g., pre-sharing of keys or certificates), and the
   MANET routers themselves may have various additional constraints
   (e.g., computational power for generating or verifying cryptographic
   attributes).  Therefore, due to the large diversity of MANET routers
   and their deployments, MANET protocols should allow for appropriate,
   and possibly multiple or various, security mechanisms.

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 extensive discussions and
   valuable contributions:

      Jari Arkko

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

      Emmanuel Baccelli

      Alan Cullen

      Justin Dean

      Christopher Dearlove

      Tom Henderson

      Bob Hinden

      Thomas Narten

      Charles Perkins

      Subhranshu Singh

      Fred Templin

      Dave Thaler

      Seung Yi

12.  Informative References

   [DWN03]    Macker, J. and S. Corson, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking:
              Routing Technology for Dynamic, Wireless Networks", IEEE
              Press,  Mobile Ad hoc Networking, Chapter 9, 2003.

   [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.

   [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.

   [RFC2501]  Corson, M. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
              (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

              Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.

   [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
              RFC 3753, June 2004.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC4903]  Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903,
              June 2007.

Authors' Addresses

   Ian D Chakeres
   Bagmane Tech Park
   66/1, Plot 5, CV Raman Nagar
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560093

   Email: ian.chakeres@gmail.com
   URI:   http://www.ianchak.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.thomasclausen.org/

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft             MANET Architecture              November 2007

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Chakeres, et al.          Expires May 11, 2008                 [Page 20]