Internet DRAFT - draft-baryun-manet-technology
draft-baryun-manet-technology
IETF MANET Working Group A. Baryun
Internet-Draft UoG
Intended status: Informational July 30, 2012
Expires: Jan 31, 2013
MANET Subnet Technologies Considerations
draft-baryun-manet-technology-00.txt
Abstract
This documents describes three subnet technologies requirements,
and considerations. These subnets are at layer 2 of the Mobile
Ad hoc Network (MANET) protocols, which have some implications on
router protocols and interfaces considerations. For example Packet
Radio subnets (PRNETs), Low power and Lossy subnets (LLNs), and
Satellite subnets (SNETs), have different service requirements
which needs considerations when designing MANET routing protocols.
This document also outlines use-case of these MANET subnets, and
requirements that may be considered in MANET routing, for the users
and designers information.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 January 31, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MANET Subnet Technology July 2012
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirement Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. The Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. MANET Technologies Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. MANET Technologies Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. NET Link Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. MANET Link Status and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Subnet Technology Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. PRNET subnet Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. LLN subnet Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. SNET subnet Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. The Technology implication on Interfaces and protocols . . . . 6
6.1. NET Link Status and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Protocol Link at Layer 2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. Main Requirements of the L2 Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MANET Subnet Technology July 2012
1. Introduction
The Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) technology characteristics and
considerations were described in [RFC2501] which include networks as
Packet Radio networks (PRNET), Energy-constrained networks (e.g. LLN),
and Satellite based networks (SNET). However, these subnets have
different implications on MANET protocols.
The input wrok of [COLE] demonstrated the different implications of
two MANET subnets if considering the need of interaction between the
layer 2 technology [DLEP] and the router. PRNET radio terminals may
relay packets among them without routing functions, and SNET radio
terminals communicate through satellite switchings. Due to multihop
relay in some subnets, [DLEP] technology may not be suitable to be
used. Furthermore, it was mentioned by [HARES] that node rapid mobility
causes either the physical or logical connectivity within a single
domain to split. Therefore, it is recommended that logical and physical
link connectivity to be distinguished [HARES][NPSISG]. In addition,
MANET routing over different technologies may have different
requirements.
For LLN subnets [NPSISG], and [MP] describe how some IP packets can be
transported over LLN technologies. However, it should be realised that
a MANET routing tends to be well-suited for particular network contexts
and less well suited for others. In [RFC2501] it was considered that
routing protocol SHOULD be able to accommodate such technology sleep
periods by coupling with the link-layer protocol through a standardized
interface.
This document intends to provide examples of three subnets for MANET
scenarios [RFC2501]. There are other MANET subnet technologies, which
are not presented nor envisioned by this document.
2. Terminology
This section provides definitions for the terminology used
throughout this document.
2.1 Requirement Level Language
This specification uses capitalized words defined in [RFC2119] to
signify requirements. In this document these words are printed in
small if not related to requirement level language. The document
uses some defined terms from other RFCs which will be noted with
each used term.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL", in this
document are to be interpreted as described in the RFC 2119.
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MANET Subnet Technology July 2012
2.2 The Document Terminology
Additionally, this document uses some terminology of [BARYUN], and
some terminology from [RFC2501].
L2:
Layer 2 as specified by ISO OSI Model.
Transmission Link Types: (TBD)
point-to-point, point-to-Many, broadcast, MIMO, SIMO, etc.
NET Link (NL):
Communication facility/medium (physical or logical) at L2. The NL is
established between at least two NET Interfaces. In SNET the NET
link MUST be unidirectional, either uplink or downlink, and it often
builds a star subnet. In PRNET the NET link MAY be bidirectional or
unidirectional which MAY builds a mesh network. MANET links [BARYUN]
are at layer 3 which MAY be in different status from NET links.
NET Interface (NI): (TBD)
A device's point of attachment to a NET link. Each device MUST have
at least one interface that SHOULD be assigned a MAC address.
Any NET interface at L2 (data, control, and management planes) MUST
have only one transmission link type.
Protocol Link:
Is the NET link that is defined/specified by the protocol
specification. This link MAY differ from NET link, as the logical
link between the peers.
Transceiver Medium Access: (TBD)
The access scheme at L2 that depend on the transmission link types
used per NET link and transceiver medium. The Medium Access Control
protocol (MAC) is designed to facilitate the use of NET link
resources among wireless devices. (BMA, NBMA [RFC4903], etc.)
NET hop:
The protocol link hop at L2 (this protocol may provide the NET
link status to IP layer or routers). MANET hop [BARYUN] is at
layer 3 which each MANET hop MAY contain more than one NET hop.
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MANET Subnet Technology July 2012
Link MTU: as specified in [BARYUN].
Variable Link MTU:
A link protocol that does not have a well-defined MTU. Most
protocols' link have a standard MTU defined to specify the maximum
and minimum MANET packet allowed.
3. MANET Technologies Applicability (TBD)
MANET technologies applications was described in [RFC2501]. However,
there are applications for MANET subnet technologies which are
not presently realized or envisioned in this document. This document
is intended to simplify three subnets: PRNET, LLN, and SNET to be
considered as examples of MANET technologies models.
4. MANET Technologies Considerations (TBD)
The wireless consideration and limitations [RFC2501]: noise,
bandwidth, transmission power, interference, fading,
jitter [RFC5148], etc. However, at layer 2 usually reliable
mechanisms are used for MANET technologies, to maintain link
connectivity.
4.1. NET Link Models
NET Link Models considerations have been described in [RFC4903] as
multi-access link models.
4.2. MANET Link Status and Quality
The MANET Link status MAY be determined from the neighbor router's
information exchange of the status of the link connectivity
between their interfaces.
5. Subnet Technology Requirements: (TBD)
5.1. PRNET subnet Requirements (TBD)
One radio-subnet model example [COLE] Figure at page-4,
centeralised or distributed PRNET can be considered in PAN,
LAN, MAN.
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MANET Subnet Technology July 2012
5.2. LLN subnet Requirements
LLN link MTU is 102 bytes [RFC4919] which requires a small MANET
packet. Some LLN technologies have sleep periods that upper protocol
need to consider.
The IETF ROLL working group has defined application-specific routing
requirements for Low-power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) routing
protocol, specified in [RFC4944], [RFC5867], [RFC5826], [RFC5673],
and [RFC5548].
5.3. SNET subnet Requirements (TBD)
one SatCom-subnet model example [COLE], Figure at page-3.
5.4. General Requirements at L2 (TBD)
a) Link MTU, so the MANET packet SHOULD not exceed.
b) Reliable services provided.
c) consider RFC5548 while using LLNs technologies.
d) single or multi-relay switching technique.
e) physical link quality depends on the NI and relay protocol.
f) etc.
6. The Technology implication on Interfaces and protocols (TBD)
MANET protocol and interfaces [COLE], Figure at page-6.
6.1. Two level Network Model (TBD)
The Fig.1 distinguishes two different topological levels: the
logical network topology and physical network topology:
+-----------+
Logical Topology (RIB) | Router | IP and/or MANET address
+-----------+
Router Interfaces | | Interface ID (i)
+--------------+ +----------------+
Logical Level | Interface i | | Interface i+1 | IP Address(es)
+--------------+ +----------------+
(Plane Type: Data, | |
or Control) | |
+-----------------+ +-------------------+
Physical Level| L2 Technology i | | L2 Technology i+1 | MAC Address
+-----------------+ +-------------------+
Figure (1) Logical and Physical Technologies at two levels
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MANET Subnet Technology July 2012
- Logical technology level- This is concerned with intra-domain
routers' functions and connectivity.
- Physical technology level- This is concerned with L2 technology
functions and connectivity.
The routers use the logical network topology to communicate through
the network. The link layer protocols use the physical topology to
communicate through the network. MANET routing protocols consideres
the logical link behavior and may include the physical link.
There are two types of technologies:Communication Technology
[BARYUN], and Control technology [DLEP][RFC5673].
(usually another type as network management technology may not
be useful at L2).
6.2. The Protocol at Layer 2.5 (TBD)
In some multi-access models [RFC4903] the protocol designers should
define some mechanism such that it appears as either the
multi-access link model or point-to-point link model at layer 3.
At Layer 2.5 a link protocol MAY provide layer 3 with the
physical link quality between its local neighbors and represent
the quality of the logical link between layer 3 peer neighbors.
If there is more than one NET hop between router neighbors then,
layer 2.5 protocol MAY provide to the layer 3 the correct link
metric and/or neighbor metric.
6.3. MANET Protocol Applicability (TBD)
7. Security Considerations (TBD)
This section will include security issues of the three subnets PRNET,
LLNs, and SNET.
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA.
9. Acknowledgments (TBD)
I would like to thank Robert Cole, Teco Bo, Charlie Perkins, Susan
Hares, Emmanual Baccelli, and Ulrich Herburg, because their input
influenced this document's approach.
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MANET Subnet Technology July 2012
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[COLE] Cole, R. "Radio, SatCom and Consideration", Presentation,
IETF 82, Taipei, Nov., 2011, pp1-7.
[RFC1677] Adamson, B., "Tactical Radio Frequency Communication
Requirements for IPng", RFC 1677, August 1994.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2501] Macker, J. and S. Corson, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
(MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.
[RFC5148] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and B. Adamson, "Jitter
considerations in MANETs", RFC 5148, February 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[BARYUN] Baryun, A, "Terminology in MANET", Work in Progress, 2012.
[DLEP] Ratliff, S., Berry, B., Harrison, G., Satterwhite, D.,
and Jury, S., "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)",
work in progress, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-02, Feb. 2012.
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., Schumacher, C., "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
RFC4919, Aug. 2007.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., Culler, D.,
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks,
RFC4944, Sep. 2007.
[RFC5673] Pister, et al."Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power
and Lossy Networks", RFC5673,
[HARES] Hares, S., Arbor, A., and White, R., "BGP Dynamic AS
Reconfiguration", IEEE MILCOM, 2007.
[NPSISG] Nieminen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., Isomaki,
M., Shelby, Z., and Gomez, C., "Transmission of IPv6
Packets over Bluetooth Low Energy", work in progress,
June 2012.
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MANET Subnet Technology July 2012
[MP] Mariager, P., Petersen, J., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over DECT Ultra Low Energy", work in progress, May 2012.
Author Address
Abdussalam Nuri Baryun
University of Glamorgan,
Treforest, Wales,
CF37 1DL, UK
Email: abdussalambaryun@gmail.com
Baryun Expires Jan 31, 2013 [Page 9]
