draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-02.txt   draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-03.txt 
MANET Autoconfiguration (Autoconf) E. Baccelli (Ed.) MANET Autoconfiguration (Autoconf) E. Baccelli (Ed.)
Internet-Draft INRIA Internet-Draft INRIA
Expires: May 22, 2008 K. Mase Expires: August 3, 2008 K. Mase
Niigata University Niigata University
S. Ruffino S. Ruffino
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
S. Singh S. Singh
Samsung Samsung
November 19, 2007 January 31, 2008
Address Autoconfiguration for MANET: Terminology and Problem Statement Address Autoconfiguration for MANET: Terminology and Problem Statement
draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-02 draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-03
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
Traditional dynamic IPv6 address assignment solutions are not adapted This document states the problems pertaining to automatic IPv6
to mobile ad hoc networks. This document elaborates on this problem, address configuration and prefix allocation in MANETs.
states the need for new solutions, and requirements to these
solutions. This draft currently contains terminology, target scenarios and goals
for MANET autoconfiguration. Future versions of this document will
also review the applicability of existing IPv6 address
autoconfiguration and prefix allocation mechanisms, and security
considerations.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. MANET Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Connected MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Subordinate MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Standalone MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.1. Scenarios of Subordinate MANETs . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Deployment Scenarios Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Autonomous MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.1. Scenarios of Autonomous MANETs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. MANET Autoconfiguration Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. MANET Autoconfiguration Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Multi-hop Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Dynamic Topology Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3. Network Merging Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.4. Network Partitioning Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. MANET Autoconfiguration Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1. Address and Prefix Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Prefix and Address Uniqueness Requirements . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3. Internet Configuration Provider Related Issues . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Solutions Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (also known as a MANET [1]) consists of a As defined in [1], a MANET is a network composed of MANET routers,
loosely connected set of MANET routers. Each MANET router embodies each of which has at least one MANET interface. This document states
IP routing/forwarding functionality and may also incorporate host the goals of autoconfiguration mechanism(s) for MANETs, with respect
functionality [2]. These routers dynamically self-organize and to the necessary parameters for basic IP identification.
maintain a routing structure among themselves, regardless of the Specifically, this document thus states the requirements for:
availability of a connection to any infrastructure.
MANET routers may be mobile and may communicate over symmetric or - autoconfiguring MANET interfaces with IPv6 addresses;
assymetric wireless links. They may thus join and leave the MANET at
any time, at a rate that can be substantially higher than in usual
networks.
However, prior to participation in IP communication, each MANET - automatic allocation of IPv6 prefixes to MANET routers.
router that does not benefit from appropriate static configuration
needs to automatically acquire at least one IP address, and may also
need to be delegated an IP prefix. This address or this prefix may
be required to be unique within a given scope, or to be topologically
appropriate.
Standard automatic IPv6 address assignment and prefix delegation This draft currently contains terminology, target scenarios and goals
solutions [5], [3] [4] do not work "as-is" on MANETs due to ad hoc for MANET autoconfiguration. Future versions of this document will
networks' unique characteristics [2]. Therefore new or modified also review the applicability of existing IPv6 address
mechanisms are needed for operation within MANET scope, and this autoconfiguration and prefix allocation mechanisms, and security
document thus details and categorizes the issues that need to be considerations.
addressed.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [2], as well as the This document uses the terminology defined in [1], as well as the
following terms : following terms :
MANET Local Prefix (MLP) - An IP prefix delegated to a MANET router, External Network - a network connected to the MANET, through an
consisting in chunks of IP addresses valid for communications interface that is not part of this MANET.
inside the MANET.
MANET Local Address (MLA) - An IP address configured on a MANET
interface, and valid for communications inside the MANET.
Global prefix - An IP prefix delegated to a MANET router, consisting
in chunks of IP addresses valid for communications reaching
outside the MANET (as well as communications within the MANET).
Global address - An IP address configured on an interface and valid
for communications reaching outside the MANET (as well as
communications within the MANET).
Internet Configuration Provider (ICP) - A router that can provide
other routers requesting configuration with addresses or prefixes
derived from a global prefix.
Connected MANET - A mobile ad hoc network, which contains at least
one ICP.
Standalone MANET - A mobile ad hoc network, which does not contain
any ICP.
Network merger - The process by which two or more previously
disjoint ad hoc networks get connected.
Network partitioning - The process by which an ad hoc network splits
into two or more disconnected ad hoc networks.
Address generation - The process of selecting a tentative address
with the purpose of configuring an interface.
Address assignment - The process of configuring an interface with a
given address.
Prefix delegation - The process of providing a router with a set of
contiguous addresses it may manage for the purpose of configuring
interfaces or other routers.
Pre-service address uniqueness - The property of an address which is
assigned at most once within a given scope, and which is unique,
before it is being used.
In-service address uniqueness - The property of an address which was
assigned at most once within a given scope, and which remains
unique over time, after the address has started being used.
3. Deployment Scenarios
Automatic configuration of IP addresses on MANET interfaces and
prefix delegation to MANET routers are necessary in a number of
deployment scenarios. This section outlines the different categories
of scenarios that are considered.
3.1. Connected MANET
Connected MANETs are mobile ad hoc networks which contain at least
one ICP, i.e. a router that can provide other routers requesting
configuration with addresses or prefixes derived from a global
prefix. Routers joining a connected MANET may either (i) have no
previous configuration, or (ii) already own pre-configured local or
global IP addresses (or prefixes).
Typical instances of this scenario include public wireless networks
of scattered fixed WLAN Access Points participating in a MANET of
mobile users, and acting as MANET border routers. Another example of
such a scenario is coverage extension of a fixed wide-area wireless
network, where one or more mobile routers in the MANET are connected
to the Internet through technologies such as UMTS or WiMAX.
3.2. Standalone MANET
Standalone MANETs are mobile ad hoc networks which do not contain any
ICP, i.e. which do not contain any router able to provide other
routers requesting configuration with addresses or prefixes derived
from a global prefix. Again, routers joining a standalone MANET may
either have (i) no previous configuration, or (ii) pre-configured
local or global IP addresses (or prefixes). Due to potential network
partitions and mergers, standalone MANETs may be composed of routers
of either types.
Typical instances of this scenario include private or temporary
networks, set-up in areas where neither wireless coverage nor network
infrastructure exist (e.g. emergency networks for disaster recovery,
or conference-room networks).
3.3. Deployment Scenarios Selection
Both "Standalone MANET" and "Connected MANET" scenarios are to be
addressed by solutions for MANET autoconfiguration. Note that
solutions should also aim at addressing cases where a MANET transits
from one scenario to an other.
4. Problem Statement
This section details the goals of MANET autoconfiguration. A
taxonomy of autoconfiguration issues specific to MANETs is then
elaborated.
4.1. MANET Autoconfiguration Goals
A MANET router needs to configure IP addresses and prefixes as usual,
on its non-MANET interfaces as well as its attached hosts and
routers, if any. In addition, a MANET router needs to configure at
least one IP address on its MANET interface, this being a link local
address, an MLA or a global address. A MANET router may also require
a delegated MLP, provided prefix uniqueness is guaranteed [2].
The primary goal of MANET autoconfiguration is thus to provide
mechanisms for IPv6 prefix delegation and address assignment for
operation on mobile ad hoc networks. Note that this task is distinct
from that of propagating knowledge about address or prefix location,
as a routing protocol does (see for example [8], [9]), or as
described in [7].
The mechanisms employed by solutions to be designed must address the
distributed, multi-hop nature of MANETs [2], and be able to follow
topology and connectivity changes by (re)configuring addresses and/or
prefixes accordingly.
Traditional dynamic IP address assignment protocols, such as [5], [3]
or [4], do not work efficiently (if at all) on MANETs, due to these
networks' unique properties. The following thus overviews what must
be specifically supported for efficient operation on mobile ad hoc
networks.
4.1.1. Multi-hop Support
Traditional solutions assume that a broadcast directly reaches every Subordinate MANET - a MANET, which is connected to one or more
router or host on the subnetwork, whereas this generally is not the external network(s), and where such external network(s) are
case in MANETs (see [2]). Some routers in the MANET will typically imposing an addressing hierarchy scheme on the MANET.
assume multihop broadcast, and expect to receive through several
intermediate relayings by peer MANET routers. For example, in Fig.
1, the MANET router MR3 cannot communicate directly with a DHCP
server [4] that would be available through a MANET border router,
since the server and the MANET router are not located on the same
logical link. While DHCP can to some extent overcome this issue in a
static network, it is not the case in a dynamic topology, as
explained below.
----- MR1...MR3 Autonomous MANET - a MANET upon which no external network imposes an
/ . addressing hierarchy.
+-------------+ +------------+ / .
| | p2p | MANET |/ .
| ISP Edge | Link | Border | .
| Router +---------+ Router |\ .
| | | | \ .
+-------------+ +------------+ \----- MR2
Fig. 1. Connected MANET router topology. Address autoconfiguration - the process of configuring an interface
with a given address, using an automatic mechanism (contrary to
manual configuration).
4.1.2. Dynamic Topology Support Prefix allocation - the process of providing a router with authority
over an aggregatable pool of addresses (i.e. a prefix), for the
purpose of configuring interfaces or other routers.
A significant proportion of the routers in the MANET may be mobile Disjoint prefixes - two prefixes are said to be disjoint if and only
with wireless interface(s), leading to ever changing neighbor sets if their respective address ranges do not overlap.
for most MANET routers (see [1]). Therefore, network topology may
change rather dynamically compared to traditional networks, which
invalidates traditional delegation solutions that were developed for
infrastructure-based networks, such as [11], which do not assume
intermittent reachability of configuration server(s), and a
potentially ever changing hierarchy among devices. For instance, in
Fig. 1, even if MR1 would be able to delegate prefixes to MR3 with
DHCP [4], it cannot be assumed that MR1 and MR3 will not move and
become unable to communicate directly. Moreover, possible frequent
reconfiguration due to intermittent reachability cause [5] to be less
efficient than expected, due to large amounts of control signalling.
In particular, supporting multihop dynamic topologies means that even Network merging - the process by which two or more previously
if some address configuration servers are present somewhere, it disjoint MANETs get connected.
cannot be assumed that they are reachable most of the time, contrary
to usual scenarios. Therefore, reusing "as-is" existing solutions
(for instance [4]) using servers on a MANET would basically imply
that "everyone is a server" in order to ensure server reachability.
This implication is the specificity of MANETs that brings the
requirement for new levels of service distribution, since the
"everyone is a server" approach is essentially not functional.
4.1.3. Network Merging Support Network partitioning - the process by which a MANET splits into two
or more disconnected MANETs.
Network merging is a potential event that was not considered in the 3. MANET Categories
design of traditional solutions, and that may greatly disrupt the
autoconfiguration mechanisms in use (see [2]). Examples of network
merging related issues include cases where a MANET A may feature
routers and hosts that use IP addresses that are locally unique
within MANET A, but this uniqueness is not guaranteed anymore if
MANET A merges with another MANET B. If address uniqueness is
required within the MANET (see Section 4.2.2), issues arise that were
not accounted for in traditional networks and solutions. For
instance, [5] and [3] test address uniqueness via messages that are
sent to neighbors only, and as such cannot detect the presence of
duplicate addresses configured within the network but located several
hops away. However, since MANETs are generally multi-hop, detection
of duplicate addresses over several hops is a feature that may be
required for MANET interface address assignment (see Section 4.2.2).
4.1.4. Network Partitioning Support IP address autoconfiguration on MANET interfaces and prefix
allocation for MANET routers may be used in a number of deployment
scenarios. This section outlines the different types of scenarios
that are to be addressed by solutions for MANET autoconfiguration.
Network partitioning is a potential event that was not considered in Note that solutions should also aim at coping with special cases such
the design of traditional solutions, and that may invalidate usual as a MANET transiting from one type of scenario to an other, or such
autoconfiguration mechanisms (see [2]). Examples of related issues as routers pre-configured with IP addresses (or prefixes) joining the
include cases such as a standalone MANET, whereby connection to the MANET.
infrastructure is not available, possibly due to network partitioning
and loss of connectivity to a MANET border router. The MANET must
thus function without traditional address allocation server
availability. While stateless protocols such as [5] and [3] could
provide IP address configuration (for MANET interfaces, loopback
interfaces), these solutions do not provide any mechanism for
allocating "unique prefix(es)" to routers in order to enable the
configuration of host interfaces.
----- MR1...MR3...MR5 3.1. Subordinate MANET
/ .
/ .
/ .
MR4 .
\ .
\ .
\----- MR2
Fig. 2. Standalone MANET router topology. A subordinate MANET, as shown in Fig. 1, is a MANET which is
connected to at least one external network N that imposes a specific
addressing hierarchy on the MANET. In a subordinate MANET, this
addressing hierarchy yields the use of specific prefixes for
communications between nodes in the MANET and nodes in or across
network N. For instance, in Fig. 1, these prefixes need to be
topologically correct, i.e. allocated from within a prefix p::, over
which the point of attachment to network N has authority.
4.2. MANET Autoconfiguration Issues '. /
`. Network N /
`. _,'
`-.__ _,,'
`'-.,._,,''
: Topologically correct prefix
+-:-+ p:: with respect to network N
|MNR|
+-|-+
+-+ +---+ / /|\ \ +---+
| |...MNR--- .-. ---MNR|
+-+ +---+ \ ,-( _)-. / +---+
.-(_ MANET )-.
Other ( Communication )
Nodes `-(______)-'
and \|/ \|/
Networks +-|-+ +-|-+
|MNR| \|/ |MNR|
+-:-+ +-|-+ +-:-+
|MNR| :
+-:-+ +-+
+-+
Figure 1: Subordinate MANET. Imposed address
hierarchy by external network N.
Taking into account the shortcomings of traditional solutions in the 3.1.1. Scenarios of Subordinate MANETs
mobile ad hoc context, this section categorizes general issues with
regards to MANET autoconfiguration.
4.2.1. Address and Prefix Generation This section contains a non-exhaustive list of examples of MANETs
falling in the subordinate category.
The distributed nature of MANETs brings the need for address A typical example of subordinate MANET is a MANET that is part of the
generation algorithms that can complement existing solutions by Internet, which yields the use of topologically correct IP addresses
supporting operation outside "client-server" schemes and without in order to communicate over the Internet. For instance public
fixed hierarchies to provide routers with appropriate addresses and wireless mesh networks, i.e. scattered fixed WLAN access routers
prefixes. In addition, the multi-hop aspect of MANETs brings participating in a MANET of mobile users, and acting as border
specific needs as far as address and prefix uniqueness is concerned, routers.
as detailed below.
4.2.2. Prefix and Address Uniqueness Requirements Another typical example is the coverage extension of a fixed wide-
area wireless network, where one or more MANET router(s) are
connected to the Internet through technologies such as UMTS or WiMAX.
If prefix or address uniqueness is required within a specific scope, Car-to-car communication networks connected to an external
and if the address/prefix generation mechanism in use does not ensure infrastructure may also be understood as an instance of subordinate
address/prefix uniqueness, then additional issues arise. This MANET.
section overviews these problems.
Pre-service Issues -- Address or prefix uniqueness problems in this 3.2. Autonomous MANET
category are called pre-service issues. Conceptually, they relate to
the fact that before a generated address or prefix is assigned and
used, it should be verified that it will not create an address
conflict within the specified scope. This is essential in the
context of routing, where it is desireable to reduce the risks of
loops due to routing table pollution with duplicate addresses.
In-Service Issues -- Address or prefix uniqueness problems in this Autonomous MANETs are MANETs upon which no external network imposes
category are called in-service issues. They come from the fact that an addressing hierarchy. This is shown in Fig. 2, as opposed to the
even if an assigned address or prefix is currently unique within the subordinate MANET category described in Section 3.1.
specified scope, it cannot be ensured that it will indeed remain
unique over time.
Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET partitioning may bring the +---+
need for checking the uniqueness (within the specified scope) of |MNR|
addresses or prefixes that are already assigned and used. This need +-|-+
may depend on (i) the probability of address conflicts, (ii) the +-+ +---+ / /|\ \ +---+
amount of the overhead for checking uniqueness of addresses, and | |...MNR--- .-. ---MNR|
(iii) address/prefix uniqueness requirements from applications. +-+ +---+ \ ,-( _)-. / +---+
.-(_ MANET )-.
Other ( Communication )
Nodes `-(______)-'
and \|/ \|/
Networks +-|-+ +-|-+
|MNR| \|/ |MNR|
+-:-+ +-|-+ +-:-+
|MNR| :
+-:-+ +-+
+-+
For instance, if (i) is extremely low and (ii) significant, then Figure 2: Autonomous MANET. No subordination to an
checking pre-service uniqueness of addresses and prefixes may not be addressing scheme imposed by an external network.
used. If on the other hand (i) is not extremely low, then checking
pre-service and in-service uniqueness of addresses or prefixes may be
required. In any case, if the application has a hard requirement for
address uniqueness assurance, in-service uniqueness checks of
addresses and prefixes should always be used, no matter how unlikely
is the event of address conflict.
4.2.3. Internet Configuration Provider Related Issues 3.2.1. Scenarios of Autonomous MANETs
Another category of problems concern the management of Internet This section contains a non-exhaustive list of instances of MANETs
configuration providers (ICPs). falling in the autonomous category.
In the case where multiple ICPs are available in the MANET, providing Typical examples of autonomous MANETs are networks set-up in areas
access to multiple address configuration servers, specific problems where infrastructure is unavailable or inapproriate. For instance,
arise. One problem is the way in which global prefixes are managed car-to-car communication for sharing traffic and safety-related
within the MANET. If one prefix is used for the whole MANET, information, on-site emergency communication among rescue team
partitioning of the MANET may result in invalid routes towards MANET members for disaster recovery, file sharing in conference or class
routers, over the Internet. On the other hand, the use of multiple rooms.
network prefixes guarantees traffic is unambiguously routed from the
hosts/routers in the Internet towards the border router responsible
for one particular prefix. However, asymmetry in the routers' choice
of ingress/egress border router can lead to non-optimal paths
followed by inbound/outbound data traffic, or to broken connectivity,
if egress filtering is being done.
When a router changes its ICP affiliation, some routes may be broken, 4. MANET Autoconfiguration Goals
affecting MANET packet forwarding performance and applications. In a
multiple border router / multiple-prefixes MANET, frequent
reconfiguration could cause a large amount of control signalling (for
instance if [5] is used).
5. Solutions Considerations The goals of AUTOCONF is to provide autoconfiguration mechanisms
which allow each MANET router to:
Solutions must achieve their task with (i) low overhead, due to 1. configure IPv6 addresses that are unique within the MANET, on
scarse bandwidth, and (ii) low delay/convergence time, due to the their MANET interface(s).
dynamicity of the topology. The evaluation of such criteria may
depend on the targeted network properties, which include (but are not
limited to) node cardinality, node mobility characteristics, etc.
Solutions are to be designed to work at the network layer and thus to 2. be allocated IPv6 prefixes that are disjoint from prefixes
apply to all link types. However, in situations where link-layer allocated to other routers within the MANET.
multicast is needed it is possible that on some link types (e.g.
NBMA links), alternative mechanisms or protocols specifying operation
over a particular link type would be required.
Solutions must interact with existing protocols in a way that 3. maintain, within the MANET, the uniqueness of configured addresses
leverages as much as possible appropriate mechanisms that are and the disjoint character of allocated prefixes (even in face of
deployed. For instance, besides the possible use of the well-known network merging).
IPv6 multicast addresses defined for neighbor discovery in [3] (e.g.
for Duplicate Address Detection), solutions may as well use some
addresses defined in [10] for auto-configuration purposes. However,
it must be ensured that no modification of existing protocols is to
be required outside of MANET scope.
Solutions must also take into account the security and trust issues 4. be allocated topologically correct prefixes, in the subordinate
that are specific to ad hoc networking (see Section 6). MANET scenario.
6. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Address configuration in MANET could be prone to security attacks, as This document does not currently introduce security considerations
in other types of IPv6 networks. Security threats to IPv6 neighbor beyond those captured by [1].
discovery were discussed in SEND WG and described in [6]: three
different trust models are specified, with varying levels of trust
among network nodes and routers. Among them, the model by which no
trust exists among nodes may be suitable a priori for most ad hoc
networks. However, the other two models may be applicable in some
cases, for example when a trust relationship exists between an
operator and some MANET routers, or between military devices that are
in the same unit. Although [6] does not explicitly address MANETs,
the trust models it provides for ad hoc networks can be valid also in
the context of MANET autoconfiguration.
It is worth noting that analysis of [6] is strictly related to 6. IANA Considerations
Neighbor Discovery, Neighbor Unreachability Detection and Duplicate
Address Detection procedures, as defined in [3] and [5]. As
explained in the present document, current standard procedures cannot
be used as-is in MANET context to achieve autoconfiguration of MANET
routers and, therefore, design of new mechanisms can be foreseen.
In this case, although security threats and attacks defined in [6] This document does not specify IANA considerations.
could also apply in presence of new solutions, additional threats and
attacks could be possible (e.g., non-cooperation in message
forwarding in multi-hop communications). Therefore, the security
analysis has to be further extended to include threats, specific to
multi-hop networks and related to the particular address
configuration solution.
General security issues of ad hoc routing protocols' operations are 7. References
not in the scope of MANET autoconfiguration.
7. IANA Considerations 7.1. Normative References
This document does currently not specify IANA considerations. [1] Macker, J., Chakeres, I., and T. Clausen, "Mobile Ad hoc
Network Architecture", ID draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch,
February 2007.
8. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[1] Macker, J. and S. Corson, "MANET Routing Protocol Performance [2] Macker, J. and S. Corson, "MANET Routing Protocol Performance
Issues and Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999. Issues and Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.
[2] Macker, J., Chakeres, I., and T. Clausen, "Mobile Ad hoc
Network Architecture", ID draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch,
February 2007.
[3] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [3] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IPv6", RFC 4861, September 2007. "Neighbor Discovery for IPv6", RFC 4861, September 2007.
[4] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. [4] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M.
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6", Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6",
RFC 3315, July 2003. RFC 3315, July 2003.
[5] Narten, T., Thomson, S., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address [5] Narten, T., Thomson, S., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
skipping to change at page 17, line 9 skipping to change at page 13, line 9
[17] Thubert, P. and TJ. Kniveton, "Mobile Network Prefix [17] Thubert, P. and TJ. Kniveton, "Mobile Network Prefix
Delegation", ID draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation, August 2007. Delegation", ID draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation, August 2007.
[18] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6", [18] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6",
RFC 3633, 2003. RFC 3633, 2003.
Contributors Contributors
This document is the result of joint efforts, including those of the This document is the result of joint efforts, including those of the
following contributers, listed in alphabetical order: C. Adjih, C. following contributers, listed in alphabetical order: C. Adjih, C.
Bernardos, T. Boot, T. Clausen, C. Dearlove, H. Moustafa, C. Perkins, Bernardos, T. Boot, T. Clausen, C. Dearlove, U. Herberg, G.
A. Petrescu, P. Ruiz, P. Stupar, F. Templin, D. Thaler, K. Weniger. Montenegro, H. Moustafa, C. Perkins, A. Petrescu, P. Ruiz, P. Stupar,
F. Templin, D. Thaler, R. Wakikawa, K. Weniger.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Emmanuel Baccelli Emmanuel Baccelli
INRIA INRIA
Phone: +33 1 69 33 55 11 Phone: +33 1 69 33 55 11
Email: Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr Email: Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr
Kenichi Mase Kenichi Mase
skipping to change at page 19, line 7 skipping to change at page 15, line 7
Email: Simone.Ruffino@telecomitalia.it Email: Simone.Ruffino@telecomitalia.it
Shubhranshu Singh Shubhranshu Singh
Samsung Samsung
Phone: +82 31 280 9569 Phone: +82 31 280 9569
Email: Shubranshu@gmail.com Email: Shubranshu@gmail.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 End of changes. 56 change blocks. 
386 lines changed or deleted 175 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/