Hi Abdullalam, I think basing a routing protocol (like those in MANET and also ROLL) on some standard definition of subnets is: 1) not needed in my experience with virtually every deployment scenario I have seen 2) conflates the network topology with the pratical issue of providing peer to peer route discovery and establishment Don On 6/4/12 12:17 AM, "Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi Don, and All, > >I would like to know your opinion about why we don't define subnets for >MANET? > >On 6/3/12, Don Sturek <d.sturek@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> +1 >> >> On 6/2/12 11:21 PM, "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Could we discuss why we don't define subnets models? I don't >understand adding (+1). I hope the chair does not ask me to close this >thread too :) > >The ad hoc autoconfig was proposed in 2005 and proposed-ended in 2011 >so living for about 6 years only. What was the reason for the proposed >close of it? please read the DA Jari's reasons below. > >IMO it because it had low/no useful discussions and only produced one >RFC which is RFC5889, why only one? what happend within 6 years? IMO >any WG should have more discussions, discussions are mandatory >activity for WG. Not discussing issues is like ignoring the value >input to group progress. Healthy discussions are more important than >producing more documents produced, because discussions are really the >source of correct documents (don't mean it has to be perfect, but >should not be misleading). WGs should be compared in terms of the >amount of discussions not in amount of documents forwarded/submitted. > >According to Chakeres and Maker (2006) [1] quoated below: > >[The autoconf WG is chartered to initially develop >two documents. The first document is a document >defining the MANET architecture and how MANET >relates to IP networks and the Internet. The second >document is to define the terminology, problem statement >and goals for autoconf. These autoconf documents >will be discussed on the autoconf mailing list.] > >That WG did not produce the definition of MANET architecture. Which I >think is related to the subnet-model definition importance for MANET. >So i understand the authors see the importance of defining something >for MANET in 2006. Now, Do we have a network architecture definition >of MANET in one RFC? > >> On 6/2/12 11:21 PM, "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>Hello folks, >>> >>>I would be opposed to requiring the subnet model as a mandatory >>>component of any current [manet] working group charter item. >>> >>>We have had at least ten years of experience showing that requiring >>>subnets can derail practically any wireless network discussion within >>>the sphere of applicability of manet protocols. The reasons are many >>>and varied -- and, I must admit, really very interesting. >>> >>>It was the death of another working group which really should have >>>been allowed to go forward except for disagreements about certain >>>subnet-related constructs. Let's not consign ourselves to the same >>>fate. > >In future the death of the WG will be because they don't discuss >things on the list, or don't have what to discuss, please read the >reasons mentioned by Jari Arkko below. IMO for the future, some day >any WGs possibly will close and other days new WGs comes. > >>> >>>Regards, >>>Charlie P. > >References: >[1] Chakers, I., and Maker, J., 'Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and the >IETF', Mobile Computing and communication review, volume 1, Number 2, >2006. > >Best regards > >Abdussalam Baryun >University of Glamorgan, UK >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >To: "autoconf at ietf.org" <autoconf at ietf.org> >Subject: [Autoconf] closing the working group? >From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> >Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:48:47 +0200 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------ >I have looked at the discussions on the list (or lack thereof). I also >cannot see too many internet drafts on the topics belonging to the >group's charter. I am very happy with the RFC that has been produced >by the working group, but we also seem to have some actual protocol >work happening elsewhere (e.g., in the context of the ROLL WG). > >I discussed this matter with the chairs and my co-AD, and we are >wondering if it would be time to close the working group. I do know >that there is at least one implementation team that is still in the >process of describing their DHCP-based solution, maybe there are >similar efforts on the distributed solution space. My proposal is that >we close the working group and I'be VERY happy to AD sponsor all such >solutions to Experimental RFCs as soon as we have those proposals in >some reasonable shape. >Thoughts? > >Jari >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >To: IETF-Announce at ietf.org >Subject: WG Review: Ad Hoc Network configuration (autoconf) >From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org> >Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:28:49 -0400 >Cc: manetautoconf at ml.free.fr >List-help: <mailto:ietf-announce-request@xxxxxxxx?subject=help> >List-id: ietf-announce.ietf.org >List-post: <mailto:ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> >List-subscribe: ><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, ><mailto:ietf-announce-request@xxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe> >List-unsubscribe: ><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, ><mailto:ietf-announce-request@xxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe> >Reply-to: iesg at ietf.org >Sender: ietf-announce-bounces at ietf.org > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------ >A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The >IESG has not >made any determination as yet. The following draft charter was >submitted, and is >provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to >the IESG >mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by August 3rd. > >+++++++++++++ > >Ad Hoc Network configuration (autoconf) >======================================== > >Current Status: Proposed Working Group > >Chairs: >TBD > >Internet Area Director(s): >Mark Townsley <townsley at cisco.com> >Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com> > >Internet Area Advisor: >Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com> > >Mailing Lists: >General Discussion: manetautoconf at ml.free.fr >To Subscribe: manetautoconf-request at ml.free.fr > >Description of the WG: > >In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC >2501) may need to configure their network interface(s) with local >addresses that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may >also need to configure globally routable addresses, in order to >communicate with devices on the Internet. > >Ad hoc networks present several new challenges. Unlike in traditional >IP networks, each ad hoc node, besides being a traffic end-point, >should be capable of forwarding traffic destined for other hosts. >Additionally, nodes constituting an ad-hoc network do not share access >to a single multicast-capable link for signaling. Many protocol >specifications used in traditional IP networks e.g. RFCs 2462, 2463 >etc. do, however, assume that subnet-local signals (e.g. link-local >multicast signal) are received by each of the hosts on the particular >subnet without being forwarded by the routers defining the subnet >boundary. > >The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to standardize mechanisms to be >used by ad hoc nodes for configuring unique local and/or globally >routable IPv6 addresses. The ad hoc nodes under consideration are >expected to support multi-hop communication by running a MANET routing >protocol, e.g. those developed by the IETF MANET WG. However, this may >or may not mean that an AUTOCONF mechanism will be dependent on any >specific MANET routing protocol. With this in mind, the goals of >AUTOCONF WG are to: > >- Produce a "terminology and problem statement" document, defining the >problem statement and goals for AUTOCONF. > >- Develop an IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration mechanism to be used by >ad hoc nodes for configuring unique local addresses as well as, in >cases where Internet connectivity exists, globally routable unique >addresses. > >- Develop a stateful address autoconfiguration mechanism to be used by >ad hoc nodes for configuring globally routable unique addresses, if an >address providing entity such as DHCPv6 server is available. > >- Develop a mechanism to promote configured address uniqueness in the >situation where different ad hoc networks merge. > >Issues and requirements related to prefix and/or address providing >entities, such as an Internet gateway, will be addressed within the >group to the extent that they are directly related to the AUTOCONF >mechanisms. Security concerns related to AUTOCONF mechanisms will also >be discussed within the group. > >The working group will reuse existing specifications whenever >reasonable and possible. > >Goals and Milestones: > >Oct 05 : Submit "terminology and problem statement" document for WG >review >Oct 05: Submit initial I-D(s) of candidate proposed AUTOCONF mechanisms >and design frameworks >Feb 06: Submit "terminology and problem statement" document to IESG for >publication as an informational RFC >Apr 06: Submit initial I-D of "stateless autoconfiguration mechanism" >for WG review >Apr 06: Submit initial I-D of "stateful autoconfiguration mechanism" >for WG review >Apr 06: Submit initial -ID of "configured address uniqueness >maintenance" for WG review >Aug 06: Revise WG documents and review >Dec 06 Revise documents based upon implementation experience >Apr 07: Submit "stateless autoconfiguration mechanism" specification >and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed >Standard >Apr 07: Submit "stateful autoconfiguration mechanism" specification and >supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard >Apr 07: Submit "configured address uniqueness maintenance" >specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as >Proposed Standard >Oct 07: Close or recharter the WG > > >_______________________________________________ >IETF-Announce mailing list >IETF-Announce at ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > > > > >===================================================== >>> >>> >>> >>>On 6/2/2012 1:12 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> I want to discuss this subnet definition issue that was raised in the >>>> 82 meeting, could we discuss about it please. Will we need to put it >>>> in a draft or include it in our active draft working in progress, >>>> please advise, >>>> >>>> Abdussalam Baryun, >>>> University of Glamorgan, UK >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> In WG 82 meeting it was mentioned (Bob Cole and Teco discussions): >>>> BC> that subnet-models are not defined But in DLEP it looks at two >>>> subnet-models (different models; e.g. radio subnet-models, >>>> sat-subnet-models). We are defining IP over a subnet, but the subnet >>>> is not defined. Then we don¹t know how to define control protocols, >>>> data-packet-formats, and managements-models without having a subnet >>>> model in mind. >>>> TB> In sat-comms the up-link and down-link can be very different. So >>>> for different nodes on same carrier can be different data rates, SNR, >>>> etc. so it is important that DLEP include the link metrics, even if it >>>> is a full connected subnet. >>>> BC> the subnet depends on the link of the subnet-underlying model, >>>> The semantics of link up and down are determined by the underlying. >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended >>>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended >>>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. >>>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or >>>> distribute its contents to any other person. >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> manet mailing list >>>> manet@xxxxxxxx >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Regards, >>>Charlie P. >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>manet mailing list >>>manet@xxxxxxxx >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> >> >>