[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

MANET Working Group                                         Sanghyun Ahn
Internet Draft                                       University of Seoul
Expires: May 23, 2018                                  November 30, 2017


                  AODV Extensions for Multipath Routing
                  draft-ahn-manet-multipath-aodv-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it
   for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

   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-
   Drafts.

   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
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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 carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.







Ahn                      Expires May 23, 2018                   [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    AODV Extensions for Multipath Routing    November 2017


Abstract

   This document describes how AODV [1] can be extended for the support
   of MANET multipath routing. In AODV, the route information is not
   avilable either at the source or at the destination. So, AODV
   is less appropriate in establishing multiple routes with more
   desirable properties, compared with DSR [2]. But, for the sake of
   reliability and load balancing, in this draft, we describe how
   we can extend AODV to establish multiple routes from the source
   to the destination.


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Extensions on AODV Options Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.1 Extensions on AODV Route Request Option  . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5





























Ahn                     Expires May 23, 2018                    [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    AODV Extensions for Multipath Routing    November 2017


1.  Requirements notation

   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 [RFC2119].


2.  Introduction

   The mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is composed of a number of mobile
   nodes which can communicate with each other through multiple wireless
   links without the help of a wired infrastructure. Therefore,
   in the MANET, the route connectivity tends to be very unstable.
   This route unstability can be mitigated by providing more than
   one route to a source and destination node pair. In recent years,
   there have been intensive studies done on multipath routing protocols
   for the MANET [3]. Also, multipath routing protocols may have the
   advantage of providing load balancing by distributing data traffic
   to a number of routes. On the other hand, it may incur more control
   message overhead to set up multiple routes.

   In AODV [1], the destination returns only one route reply (RREP)
   message which fixes the previous-hop node and the next-hop node
   of each intermediate node of the chosen route. Either the source or
   the destination node does not have the knowledge of the nodes on the
   route, so it is not possible for the source or the destination node
   to choose multiple routes with desirable properties, such as
   link-disjoint, node-disjoint, etc.. Even in this case,
   for the sake of reliability and load balancing, it is preferable to
   have multiple routes for a source-destination node pair.

   In this draft, we describe how the AODV Options header has to be
   extended to support the multiple paths between the source and
   the destination nodes.


3.  Extensions on AODV Options Header


3.1 Extensions on AODV Route Request Option

   The Route Request option in the AODV Options header is extended as
   follows:







Ahn                     Expires May 23, 2018                    [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    AODV Extensions for Multipath Routing    November 2017


 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      Type     |J|R|G|D|U|PC |     Resv        |   Hop Count   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             RREQ ID                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                     Destination IP Address                    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                   Destination Sequence Number                 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      Originator IP Address                    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                    Originator Sequence Number                 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   IP fields
      The same as described in [1].

   Route Request fields
      The same as described in [1] except for the PC field.

   PC (Path Count)
      This field indicates the maximum number of routes between the
      source and the destination. The default value of PC is 0 which
      implies a single route between the source and the destination.
      The source sets the PC value to the value which is one less than
      the required maximum number of routes. When the destination
      receives RREQ messages from the source, it has to send back
      at most (PC+1) different RREP messages (routes) to the source.
      The mechanism to select those routes is out of the scope of
      this draft.


4. Other Considerations

   TBD.












Ahn                     Expires May 23, 2018                    [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     DSR Extensions for Multipath Routing    November 2017


References

   [1] C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer and S. Das, "Ad hoc On-demand
       Distance Vector (AODV) Routing," RFC 3561, July 2003.
   [2] D. Johnson, Y. Hu and D. Maltz, "The Dynamic Source Routing
       Protocol," RFC 4728, February 2007.
   [3] M. Tarique, K. E. Tepe, S. Abidi and S. Erfani, "Survey of
       Multipath Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks," Journal
       of Network and Computer Applications, November 2009.


Author's Address

   Sanghyun Ahn
   University of Seoul
   90, Cheonnong-dong, Tongdaemun-gu
   Seoul 130-743
   Korea
   Email: ahn@uos.ac.kr































Ahn                      Expires May 23, 2018                   [Page 5]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/