RFC 7187 PROPOSED STANDARD ROUTING · MANET

OLSRv2 MPR: Routing Multipoint Relay Optimization for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)

An optional trim of OLSRv2's routing relay set that can shrink messages without breaking interoperability.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
April 2014
AUTHORS
C. Dearlove, T. Clausen
STREAM
IETF
BUILDS ON
RFC 7181 — OLSRv2
REQUIREMENT LEVEL
MAY (optional optimization)
INTEROPERABILITY
Full, with and without it
DOI
10.17487/RFC7187

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       C. Dearlove
Request for Comments: 7187                               BAE Systems ATC
Updates: 7181                                                 T. Clausen
Category: Standards Track                       LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               April 2014


               Routing Multipoint Relay Optimization for
      the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)

Abstract

   This specification updates the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
   version 2 (OLSRv2) with an optimization to improve the selection of
   routing multipoint relays.  The optimization retains full
   interoperability between implementations of OLSRv2 with and without
   this optimization.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7187.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.  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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Routing MPR Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 [RFC7181] is a
   proactive link state routing protocol designed for use in mobile ad
   hoc networks (MANETs) [RFC2501].  This document improves one area of
   the OLSRv2 specification.

   One improvement included in OLSRv2, compared to its predecessor
   described in [RFC3626], is the use of link metrics, rather than
   minimum-hop routing.  A rationale for how link metrics were included
   in OLSRv2 is documented in [RFC7185].  However, one aspect of the use
   of link metrics described in [RFC7185], the removal of some
   unnecessarily selected routing multipoint relays (MPRs), was not
   included in [RFC7181].  This specification updates OLSRv2 to include
   this optimization.

   Note that this optimization does not impact interoperability:
   implementations that do and do not implement this optimization will
   interoperate seamlessly.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

   Additionally, this document uses the terminology of [RFC7181].

3.  Applicability Statement

   This specification updates [RFC7181].  As such, it is applicable to
   all implementations of this protocol.  The optimization presented in
   this specification is simply permissive; it allows an additional
   optimization, and there is no requirement for any implementation to
   include it.  However, inclusion of this optimization is advised; it
   can, in some cases, create smaller and fewer messages, without ever
   having the opposite effect.

   [RFC7181] defines the properties for the selection of routing MPRs
   from among a router's symmetric 1-hop neighbors.  The properties are

   o  the selected MPRs must consist of a set of symmetric 1-hop
      neighbors that cover all the symmetric 2-hop neighbors, and

   o  the selected MPRs must do so retaining a minimum distance route
      (1-hop, if present, or 2-hop) to each symmetric 2-hop neighbor.

   The discussion in the latter part of Section 6.2 of [RFC7185]
   indicates that this requirement is overly prescriptive for routing
   MPR selection.  The update to [RFC7181] described in this
   specification permits a router to use the described optimization,
   while still being considered compliant with OLSRv2.

   Note that whether or not a router is considered compliant, a router
   that implements the optimization described in this specification will
   interoperate successfully with routers that are not implementing this
   optimization.

4.  Routing MPR Selection

   A set of routing MPRs created as specified in [RFC7181] MAY be
   optimized in the following manner.  Note that this uses the notation
   of Section 18.2 of [RFC7181]:

   1.  If there is a sequence x_0, ..., x_n of elements of N1 such that:

       *  x_0 is a routing MPR,

       *  x_1, ... , x_n have corresponding elements y_1, ..., y_n of
          N2, and

       *  d1(x_0) + d2(x_0,y_1) + ... + d2(x_m-1,y_m) < d1(x_m) for m =
          1, ... , n,

       then x_1 to x_n may be removed from the set of routing MPRs, if
       selected.

   Note that "corresponding elements" in N1 and N2 means that these
   elements represent the same router.  All of this information is
   available from information gathered by NHDP [RFC6130].

5.  Security Considerations

   The update to OLSRv2 [RFC7181] does not introduce any new protocol
   signals, nor does it change the processing of any received protocol
   signals.

   This update to OLSRv2 [RFC7181] permits an implementation that is
   compliant with OLSRv2 to (potentially) eliminate some unneeded
   routers from the routing MPR sets generated as described in
   [RFC7181], which also eliminates the need to include the
   corresponding information in generated Topology Control (TC)
   messages.  Because this information is not used when included, this
   update to OLSRv2 [RFC7181] does not present any additional security
   considerations, beyond those described in [RFC7181].

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Philippe Jacquet
   (Alcatel-Lucent) for intense technical discussions and comments.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC6130]  Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc
              Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
              RFC 6130, April 2011.

   [RFC7181]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", RFC
              7181, April 2014.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2501]  Macker, J. and S. Corson, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
              (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
              Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.

   [RFC3626]  Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "The Optimized Link State
              Routing Protocol", RFC 3626, October 2003.

   [RFC7185]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and P. Jacquet, "Rationale for
              the Use of Link Metrics in the Optimized Link State
              Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7185, April
              2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Christopher Dearlove
   BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
   West Hanningfield Road
   Great Baddow, Chelmsford
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44 1245 242194
   EMail: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
   URI:   http://www.baesystems.com/


   Thomas Heide Clausen
   LIX, Ecole Polytechnique

   Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
   EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
   URI:   http://www.ThomasClausen.org/

AI ELI5

On this page
PROBLEMOLSRv2 selects routing multipoint relays (MPRs) in a way the rationale document found overly prescriptive, so some selected MPRs are unnecessary when link metrics are used.
MECHANISMThe RFC lets a router remove certain MPRs from the set built under RFC 7181, when a sequence of neighbors can be reached over a shorter total metric distance.
WHY IT MATTERSThe optimization is permissive, can give smaller and fewer messages and never the opposite, and routers with and without it interoperate. It updates RFC 7181.

§1Context and Motivation

The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2, RFC 7181) is a proactive link state routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. Compared to its predecessor, RFC 3626, it uses link metrics rather than only minimum-hop routing.

The rationale for link metrics in RFC 7185 describes removing some unnecessarily selected routing multipoint relays (MPRs), but that step was not included in RFC 7181. This specification adds it.

A network of moving gadgets uses helper gadgets to pass messages along. Some helpers turn out to be unnecessary, and this update lets a router skip them.

§3Applicability

The optimization is simply permissive: there is no requirement for any implementation to include it. Including it is advised because it can, in some cases, create smaller and fewer messages, without ever having the opposite effect.

RFC 7181 requires the routing MPRs to be symmetric 1-hop neighbors that cover all symmetric 2-hop neighbors, while retaining a minimum distance route to each. RFC 7185 indicates this is overly prescriptive. A router using the optimization is still considered compliant, and it interoperates with routers that do not use it.

You may use the shortcut or not. If you do, you never make things worse, and you can still work with those who do not.

§4Routing MPR Selection

A set of routing MPRs built as specified in RFC 7181 MAY be optimized. Consider a sequence x_0 through x_n of 1-hop neighbors where x_0 is a routing MPR and x_1 through x_n have corresponding 2-hop neighbors y_1 through y_n. If, for each m, the metric distance via x_0 and the preceding 2-hop links is less than the direct distance d1(x_m), then x_1 to x_n may be removed from the routing MPR set if they were selected.

"Corresponding elements" means elements that represent the same router. All the needed information is available from the neighborhood discovery protocol, NHDP (RFC 6130).

If a message can reach a neighbor faster by going through a helper you already have, the extra helper is not needed and can be dropped.

§5Security Considerations

The update adds no new protocol signals and does not change how received signals are processed. It may remove unneeded routers from the routing MPR sets, which also removes the need to include that information in Topology Control (TC) messages. Because the information is not used when included, no additional security considerations arise beyond those in RFC 7181.

Nothing new is sent and nothing is treated differently, so nothing new can go wrong.

§5References