Session Date/Time: 06 Nov 2025 16:30

MANET

Summary

The MANET session at IETF 124 covered updates on current working group documents, a detailed presentation and discussion on MANET internetworking, and a revisit of issues identified in RFC 8175 (DLAP) due to concerns from implementers. The working group indicated strong interest in pursuing work on MANET internetworking and addressing the RFC 8175 issues.

Key Discussion Points

Agenda and Logistics

The chairs welcomed attendees and presented the agenda. A request for a volunteer note-taker was made.
A scheduling conflict with the TIPTOP working group was noted, which prevented some participants (e.g., Rick Taylor) from attending.

Document Status

Credit-based Flow Control (4 documents): These documents are in the RFC Editor queue, having been there for over 216 days, and are expected to be published relatively soon.
DLAP Extensions (4 documents): These drafts, related to physical layer information from modems/radios, underwent Working Group Last Call (WGLC) a month prior. Comments were received, revisions posted, and further discussion is ongoing to resolve remaining points. Tom Feddick is the document shepherd.
Individual Drafts:
- draft-deerloff-manet-olsrv2-slim-extension (Christopher Deerloff): This draft describes an extension to OLSv2 to make it less "chatty" in stable environments, without defining new protocol formats. The chairs noted its well-crafted style. A poll was conducted: 6 out of 21 participants had read the draft, and 6 voted in favor of adopting it as a working group item (with 2 abstentions).
- draft-perkins-manet-aodvv2 (Charles Perkins): An AODVv2 draft, for which an implementation status was presented at a previous IETF. This large draft requires more reviews and comments on the mailing list.
- MANET Awareness Model (MAM) Yang Model: New work is expected in this area, with authors aiming to produce an Internet-Draft before the next IETF.

MANET Internetworking

Presentation: draft-jakubicek-manet-internetworking-gap-analysis (Daniel Jakubicek, Fred Templin):
- Problem Statement: The document addresses the need for MANETs to route traffic to/from the public internet or other MANETs via the internet. It introduces inter-networking gateway nodes at the points of interconnection.
- Use Cases:
  - Disaster Relief: MANETs close coverage gaps, providing access to fixed infrastructure (e.g., 5G, Wi-Fi) when it's disrupted.
  - Tracking Shipments: Low-power IoT devices (tags) use MANETs to communicate with fixed infrastructure when direct service is unavailable (e.g., inside shipping containers).
  - UAV Swarms: Enables more reliable communication across large UAV swarms by using fixed infrastructure as transit, rather than solely multi-hop MANET paths.
- Gap Analysis (Fred Templin):
  - MANET Local Addressing: Need for unique IP addresses for MANET-local communications, with a scope greater than link-local, but not tied to potentially intermittent infrastructure. Addresses must be globally unique if MANETs could merge.
  - Auto-configuration: MANET nodes require global-scoped IP addresses. Standard link-scope services (IPv6 ND, DHCPv6) are not suitable for multi-hop MANETs. Two methods were discussed: 1) collective participation to repeat link-scope requests, 2) virtual overlay multi-interface.
  - MANET Internal Communications: Nodes within the same MANET region should communicate multi-hop using MANET-local addresses without external infrastructure.
  - MANET to Internet Correspondent: MANET nodes use mobility service provider aggregated IPs. Internet correspondents find MANET nodes via global DNS. The MANET node's IP in DNS must remain stable during mobility events.
  - MANET to MANET via Internet: Both peers require IP addresses in global DNS, and a mobility service must ensure reachability.
  - Stub/Not-So-Stubby MANETs: Discussed how internet connection sharing routers can delegate addresses (public/private with NAT) and the concept of virtual overlay links for multi-hop MANETs.
Discussion and Polls:
- A clarification was made that "MANET internetworking" includes MANET to internet correspondent, internet correspondent to MANET, and MANET to MANET via an internetwork.
- A poll was taken asking if "the topic of MANET to MANET internetworking (including MANET to/from internetwork)" is a topic the working group wants to look at. The response was unanimously positive.
- A second poll asked if "MANET-to-MANET using a non-MANET internetwork" is a topic the working group wants to work on. This also received a positive response.
- Attendees were encouraged to review the draft and provide comments.

RFC 8175 (DLAP) Issues

Revisiting IETF 110 Presentation (Rick Taylor & Lou Berger): The chair presented an older presentation, noting its continued relevance as radio manufacturers are encountering difficulties with RFC 8175 (DLAP) and are considering creating their own specification.
Identified Issues (still largely unaddressed):
- Lack of clarity on metrics (e.g., sender/receiver perspective for Tx/Rx data rates).
- Ambiguity in multicast behavior.
- Incorrect behavior when responding to peer discovery signals (this specific issue has been addressed via errata and test cases).
- Transaction handling rules causing unnecessary session resets.
- Excessive session resets due to relatively benign errors.
- Confusion between current data rate and maximum data rate.
- Lack of clarity/utility of "relative link quality" and "resources" fields.
- Challenges with multicast behavior (MAC-IP relation, handling multicast destination messages).
- Session sequencing issues, leading to resets when unexpected messages or collisions occur.
Discussion on Update vs. BIS:
- The original presentation suggested an "update" document rather than a "BIS" (Boiler Plate is Separate) document for RFC 8175.
- Lou Berger explained that an "update" document limits IESG review to only the changed parts, making the process smoother, whereas a "BIS" subjects the entire document to potential re-litigation.
- A participant questioned if a full "BIS" document would be appropriate given existing deployments and feedback, suggesting a complete revision. The chair acknowledged the IESG risk but welcomed input.
- It was emphasized that the working group is contribution-driven, and those willing to author content should drive the direction.
- The availability of the original XML source code for RFC 8175 was confirmed, which would facilitate an update.
- The chair noted awareness of issues from practical use of a DLAP library.
Polls:
- A poll was taken: "Is doing something about the identified issues in RFC 8175 a topic the WG should work on?" The response was unanimously positive.
- A second poll asked: "Are you willing to author content for the update of RFC 8175?" One person volunteered.

Decisions and Action Items

Decision: The MANET working group will proceed with examining and potentially developing solutions for MANET internetworking, based on the positive sentiment from the room.
- Action Item: All interested participants are encouraged to review draft-jakubicek-manet-internetworking-gap-analysis and provide detailed comments on the mailing list.
Decision: The MANET working group will address the identified issues and ambiguities within RFC 8175 (DLAP).
- Action Item: The individual who volunteered to author content for an update to RFC 8175 is encouraged to begin drafting, considering whether an "update" or "BIS" document is most appropriate as the scope becomes clearer, and leveraging existing discussions and the RFC's source code.

Next Steps

Continued discussion on MANET internetworking topics on the mailing list.
The volunteer author for RFC 8175 will initiate work on clarifying and correcting the specification.
Further review and discussion on draft-deerloff-manet-olsrv2-slim-extension is expected.
Further reviews for draft-perkins-manet-aodvv2 are needed.
Anticipate an initial draft for the MANET Awareness Model (MAM) Yang model before IETF 125.