Internet DRAFT - draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics
draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics
Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) C. Dearlove
Internet-Draft BAE Systems ATC
Intended status: Informational T. Clausen
Expires: January 7, 2013 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, France
P. Jacquet
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
July 6, 2012
Link Metrics for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Routing Protocol
OLSRv2 - Rationale
draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-06
Abstract
This document describes the rationale for and design considerations
behind how link metrics are included in OLSRv2, in order to allow
routing by other than minimum hop count routes.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Motivational Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Link Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Link Metric Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Link Metric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Directional Link Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Reporting Link and Neighbor Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Defining Incoming Link Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.6. Link Metric Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. MPRs with Link Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Flooding MPRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Routing MPRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Relationship Between MPR Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. MPR Routing Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
1. Introduction
The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 1 (OLSRv1)
[RFC3626] is a proactive routing protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks
(MANETs) [RFC2501]. OLSRv1 finds shortest, defined as minimum number
of hops, routes from a router to all possible destinations.
Using only minimum hop routes may result in what are, in practice,
inferior routes. Some examples are given in Section 4. Thus, one of
the distinguishing features of the Optimized Link State Routing
Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) [OLSRv2] is the introduction of the
ability to select routes using link metrics other than the number of
hops.
OLSRv2 essentially first determines local link metrics from 1-hop
neighbors, these being defined by a process outside OLSRv2, then
distributes required link metric values in HELLO and TC messages, and
then finally forms routes with minimum total link metric. Using a
definition of route metric other than number of hops is a natural
extension that is commonly used in link state protocols.
Use of the extensible message format [RFC5444] by OLSRv2 has allowed
the addition, by OLSRv2, of link metric information to the HELLO
messages defined in the MANET NeighborHood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
[RFC6130] as well as inclusion in the Topology Control (TC) messages
defined in [OLSRv2].
A metric-based route selection processes for OLSRv2 could have been
handled as an extension to OLSRv2. However in this case, legacy
OLSRv2 routers, which would not recognize any link metric
information, would still attempt to use minimum hop-count routes.
This would mean that, in effect, routers differed over their
valuation of links and routes. This would have led to the
fundamental routing problem of "looping". Thus if metric-based route
selection were to have been considered only as an extension to
OLSRv2, then routers which did, and routers which did not, implement
the extension would not have been able to interoperate. This would
have been a significant limitation of such an extension. Link
metrics were therefore included as standard in OLSRv2.
This document discusses the motivation and design rationale behind
how link metrics were included in OLSRv2. The principal issues
involved when including link metrics in OLSRv2 were:
o Assigning metrics to links involved considering separate metrics
for the two directions of a link, with the receiving router
determining the metric from transmitter to receiver. A metric
used by OLSRv2 may be either of:
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
* A link metric, the metric of a specific link from an OLSRv2
interface of the transmitting router to an OLSRv2 interface of
the receiving router.
* A neighbor metric, the minimum of the link metrics between two
OLSRv2 routers, in the indicated direction.
These metrics are necessarily the same when these routers each
have a single OLSRv2 interface, but may differ when either has
more. HELLO messages may include both link metrics and neighbor
metrics. TC messages include only neighbor metrics.
o Metrics as used in OLSRv2 were defined to be dimensionless and
additive. The assignment of metrics, including their relationship
to real parameters such as bandwidth, loss rate and delay, is
outside the scope of OLSRv2, which simply uses these metrics in a
consistent manner. However by use of a registry of metric types
(employing extended types of a single address block TLV type),
routers can use only metrics of the physical type that they are
configured to use.
o The separation of the two functions performed by MPRs in OLSRv1,
optimized flooding and reduced topology advertisement for routing,
into separate sets of MPRs in OLSRv2 [OLSRv2], denoted "flooding
MPRs" and "routing MPRs". Flooding MPRs can be calculated as in
[RFC3626], but the use of link metrics in OLSRv2 can improve the
MPR selection. Routing MPRs need a metric-aware selection
algorithm. The selection of routing MPRs guarantees the use of
minimum distance routes using the chosen metric, while using only
symmetric 2-hop neighborhood information from HELLO messages and
routing MPR selector information from TC messages.
o The protocol Information Bases defined in OLSRv2 include required
metric values. This has included additions to the protocol
Information Bases defined in NHDP [RFC6130] when used by OLSRv2.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
2. Terminology
All terms introduced in [RFC5444], including "message" and "TLV", are
to be interpreted as described there.
All terms introduced in [RFC6130], including "MANET Interface",
"HELLO message", "heard", "link", symmetric link", "1-hop neighbor",
"symmetric 1-hop neighbor", "2-hop neighbor", "symmetric 2-hop
neighbor", and "symmetric 2-hop neighborhood", are to be interpreted
as described there.
All terms introduced in [OLSRv2], including "router", "OLSRv2
interface", "willingness", "MultiPoint Relay (MPR)", "MPR selector",
and "MPR flooding" are to be interpreted as described there.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
3. Applicability
The objective of this document is to retain the design considerations
behind how link metrics were included in [OLSRv2]. The document does
not prescribe any behavior, but explains some aspects of the
operation of OLSRv2.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
4. Motivational Scenarios
The basic situation that suggests the desirability of use of routes
other than minimum hop routes is shown in Figure 1.
A ----- X ----- B
\ /
\ /
Y ------- Z
Figure 1
The minimum hop route from A to B is via X. However if the links A to
X and X to B are poor (e.g., having low bandwidth or being
unreliable) but the links A to Y, Y to Z and Z to B are better (e.g.,
having reliable high bandwidth) then the route A to B via Y and Z may
be preferred to that via X.
There are other situations where, even if the avoidance of some links
do not show immediately obvious benefits to users, their use should
be discouraged. Consider a network with many short range links, and
a few long range links. Use of minimum hop routes will immediately
lead to heavy use of the long range links. This will be particularly
undesirable if those links achieve their longer range through reduced
bandwidth, or through being less reliable. However, even if the long
range links have the same characteristics as the short range links,
it may be better to reserve usage of the long range links for when
this usage is particularly valuable - for example when the use of one
long range link saves several short range links, rather than the
single link saving that is all that is needed for a minimum hop
route.
A related case is that of a privileged relay. An example is an
aerial router in an otherwise ground based network. The aerial
router may have a link to many, or even all, other routers. That
would lead to all routers attempting to send all their traffic (other
than to symmetric 1-hop neighbors and some symmetric 2-hop neighbors)
via the aerial router. It may however be important to reserve that
capacity for cases where the aerial router is actually essential,
such as if the ground based portion of the network is not connected.
Other cases may involve attempts to avoid areas of congestion, to
route around insecure routers (by preference, but prepared to use
them if there is no other alternative) and routers attempting to
discourage their use as relays due to, for example, limited battery
power. OLSRv2 does have another mechanism to aid in this, a router's
willingness to act as an MPR. However there are cases where that
cannot help, but where use of non-minimum hop routes could.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
Similarly note that OLSRv2's optional use of link quality (through
its use of [RFC6130]) is not a solution to these problems. Use of
link quality as specified in [RFC6130] allows a router to decline to
use a link, not only on its own, but on all routers' behalf. It does
not, for example, allow the use of a link otherwise determined to be
too low quality to be generally useful, as part of a route where no
better links exist. These mechanisms (link quality and link metrics)
solve distinctly different problems.
It should also be noted that the loop-free property of OLSRv2 applies
strictly only in the static state. When the network topology is
changing, and with possibly lossy messages, it is possible for
transient loops to form. However with update rates appropriate to
the rate of topology change, such loops will be sufficiently rare.
Changing link metrics is a form of network topology change, and
should be limited to a rate slower than the message information
update rate (defined by the parameters HELLO_INTERVAL,
HELLO_MIN_INTERVAL, REFRESH_INTERVAL, TC_INTERVAL and
TC_MIN_INTERVAL).
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
5. Link Metrics
This section describes the required and selected properties of the
link metrics used in OLSRv2, followed by implementation details
achieving those properties.
5.1. Link Metric Properties
Link metrics in OLSRv2 are:
o Dimensionless. While they may, directly or indirectly, correspond
to specific physical information (such as delay, loss rate or
bandwidth), this knowledge is not used by OLSRv2. Instead,
generating the metric value is the responsibility of a mechanism
external to OLSRv2.
o Additive, so that the metric of a route is the sum of the metrics
of the links forming that route. Note that this requires a metric
where a low value of a link metric indicates a "good" link and a
high value of a link metric indicates a "bad" link, where the
former will be preferred to the latter.
o Directional, the metric from router A to router B need not be the
same as the metric from router B to router A, even when using the
same OLSRv2 interfaces. At router A, a link metric from router B
to router A is referred to as an incoming link metric, while a
link metric from router A to router B is referred to as an
outgoing link metric. (These are, of course, reversed at router
B.)
o Specific to a pair of OLSRv2 interfaces, so that if there is more
than one link from router A to router B, each has its own link
metric in that direction. There is also be an overall metric, a
"neighbor metric", from router A to router B (its 1-hop neighbor).
This is the minimum value of the link metrics from router A to
router B, considering symmetric links only; it is undefined if
there are no such symmetric links. A neighbor metric from one
router to another is always equal to a link metric in the same
direction between OLSRv2 interfaces of those routers. When
referring to a specific OLSRv2 interface (for example in a Link
Tuple or a HELLO message sent on that OLSRv2 interface) a link
metric always refers to a link on that OLSRv2 interface, to or
from the indicated 1-hop neighbor OLSRv2 interface, while a
neighbor metric may be equal to a link metric to and/or from
another OLSRv2 interface.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
5.2. Link Metric Types
There are various physical characteristics that may be used to define
a link metric. Some examples, which also illustrate some
characteristics of metrics that result, are:
o Delay is a straightforward metric, as it is naturally additive,
the delay of a multi-link route is the sum of the delays of the
links. (This does not directly take into account delays due to
routers, rather than links, but these can be divided among
incoming and outgoing links.) However, given a limited range of
link metric value, more than one type of delay metric may be
required, representing different ranges of delay value.
o Probability of loss on a link is, as long as probabilities of loss
are small and independent, approximately additive. (A slightly
more accurate approach is using a negatively scaled logarithm of
the probability of not losing a packet.) If losses are not
independent then this will be pessimistic. Again, more than one
range of values (or more than one scaling of the logarithms) may
be needed.
o Bandwidth is not additive, it even has the wrong characteristic of
being good when high, bad when low; thus a mapping that inverts
its ordering must be applied. Such a mapping can, at best, only
produce a metric that it is acceptable to treat as additive.
Consider, for example, a preference for a route that maximizes the
minimum bandwidth link on the route, and then prefers a route with
the fewest links of each bandwidth from the lowest. If links may
be of three discrete bandwidths, "high", "medium" and low", then
this preference can be achieved, on the assumption that no route
will have more than 10 links, with metric values of 1, 10 and 100
for the three bandwidths. If routes can have more than 10 links,
the range of metrics must be increased; this indicates a
preference for a wide "dynamic range" of link metric values.
Depending on the ratios of the numerical values of the three
bandwidths, the same effect may be achieved by using a scaling of
an inverse power of the numerical values of the bandwidths. For
example if the three bandwidths were 2, 5 and 10 Mbit/s, then a
possible mapping would be the fourth power of 10 Mbit/s divided by
the bandwidth, giving metric values of 625, 16 and 1 (good for up
to 16 links in a route). This mapping can be extended to a system
with more bandwidth values, for example giving a 4 Mbit/s
bandwidth a metric value of about 39. This may lose the
capability to produce an absolutely maximum minimum bandwidth
route, but will usually produce either that, or something close
(and at times maybe better, is a route of three 5 Mbit/s links
really better than one of a single 4 Mbit/s link?) Specific
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
metrics will need to define the mapping (e.g., a power and
bandwidth scaling).
There are also many other possible metrics, including physical layer
information (such as signal to noise ratio, and error control
statistics) and information such as packet queuing statistics.
In a well-designed network, all routers will use the same physical
metric type. It will not produce good routes if, for example, some
link metrics are based on bandwidth and some on path loss (except to
the extent that these may be correlated). How to achieve this is an
administrative matter, outside the scope of OLSRv2. In fact even the
actual physical meanings of the metrics is outside the scope of
OLSRv2. This is because new metrics may be added in the future, for
example as bandwidths increase, and may be based on new, possibly
non-physical, considerations, for example financial cost. Each such
type will have a metric type number. Initially a single link metric
type zero is defined as indicating a dimensionless metric with no
predefined physical meaning.
An OLSRv2 router is instructed which single link metric type to use
and recognize, without knowing whether it represents delay,
probability of loss, bandwidth, cost or any other quantity. This
recognized link metric type number is a router parameter, and subject
to change in case of reconfiguration, or possibly the use of a
protocol (outside the scope of OLSRv2) permitting a process of link
metric type agreement between routers.
The use of link metric type numbers also suggests the possibility of
use of multiple link metric types and multiple network topologies.
This is a possible future extension to OLSRv2. To allow for that
future possibility, the sending of more than one metric, of different
physical types, which should otherwise not be done for reasons of
efficiency, is not prohibited, but types other than that configured
will be ignored.
The following three sections assume a chosen single link metric type,
of unspecified physical nature.
5.3. Directional Link Metrics
OLSRv2 uses only "symmetric" (bidirectional) links, which may carry
traffic in either direction. A key decision was whether these links
should each be assigned a single metric, used in both directions, or
a metric in each direction, noting that:
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
o Links can have different characteristics in each direction, use of
directional link metrics recognizes this.
o In many (possibly most) cases, the two ends of a link will
naturally form different views as to what the link metric should
be. To use a single link metric requires a coordination between
the two that can be avoided if using directional metrics. Note
that if using a single metric, it would be essential that the two
ends agree as to its value, otherwise it is possible for looping
to occur. This problem does not occur for directional metrics.
Based on these considerations, directional metrics are used in
OLSRv2. Each router must thus be responsible for defining the metric
in one direction only. This could have been in either direction,
i.e., that a router is responsible for either incoming or outgoing
link metrics, as long as the choice is universal. The former
(incoming) case is used in OLSRv2 because, in general, receiving
routers have more information available to determine link metrics
(for example received signal strength, interference levels, and error
control coding statistics).
Note that, using directional metrics, if router A defines the metric
of the link from router B to router A, then router B must use router
A's definition of that metric on that link in that direction.
(Router B could, if appropriate, use a bad mismatch between
directional metrics as a reason to discontinue use of this link,
using the link quality mechanism in [RFC6130].)
5.4. Reporting Link and Neighbor Metrics
Links, and hence link metrics, are reported in HELLO messages. A
router must report incoming link metrics in its HELLO messages in
order that these are each available at the other end of the link.
This means that, for a symmetric link, both ends of the link will
know both of the incoming and outgoing link metrics.
As well as advertising incoming link metrics, HELLO messages also
advertise incoming neighbor metrics. These are used for routing MPR
selection (see Section 6.2), which requires use of the lowest metric
link between two routers when more than one link exists. This
neighbor metric may be using another OLSRv2 interface, and hence the
link metric alone is insufficient.
Metrics are also reported in TC messages. It can be shown that these
need to be outgoing metrics:
o Router A must be responsible for advertising a metric from router
A to router B in TC messages. This can be seen by considering a
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
route connecting single OLSRv2 interface routers P to Q to R to S.
Router P receives its only information about the link from R to S
in the TC messages transmitted by router R, which is an MPR of
router S (assuming that only MPR selectors are reported in TC
messages). Router S may not even transmit TC messages (if no
routers have selected it as an MPR and it has no attached networks
to report). So any information about the metric of the link from
R to S must also be included in the TC messages sent by router R,
hence router R is responsible for reporting the metric for the
link from R to S.
o In a more general case, where there may be more than one link from
R to S, the TC message must, in order that minimum metric routes
can be constructed (e.g., by router P) report the minimum of these
outgoing link metrics, i.e., the outgoing neighbor metric from R
to S.
In this example, router P also receives information about the
existence of a link between Q and R in the HELLO messages sent by
router Q. Without the use of metrics, this link may be used by OLSRv2
for two hop routing to router R using just HELLO messages sent by
router Q. For this property (which accelerates local route formation)
to be retained (from OLSRv1) router P must receive the metric from Q
to R in HELLO messages sent by router Q. This indicates that router Q
must be responsible for reporting the metric for the outgoing link
from Q to R. This is in addition to the incoming link metric
information that a HELLO message must report. Again, in general,
this must be the outgoing neighbor metric, rather than the outgoing
link metric.
In addition, Section 6.1 offers an additional reason for reporting
outgoing neighbor metrics in HELLO messages, without which metrics
can properly affect only routing, not flooding.
Note that there is no need to report an outgoing link metric in a
HELLO message. The corresponding 1-hop neighbor knows that value, it
specified it, and for 2-hop neighborhood use neighbor metrics are
required (as these will, in general, not use the same OLSRv2
interface).
5.5. Defining Incoming Link Metrics
When a router reports a 1-hop neighbor in a HELLO message it may do
so for the first time with link status HEARD. The receiving router
will then immediately consider the link to be symmetric and thus will
use it.
As the router is responsible for defining and reporting incoming link
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
metrics, it must evaluate that metric, and attach that link metric to
the appropriate address (which will have link status HEARD) in the
next HELLO message reporting that address on that OLSRv2 interface.
There will, at this time, be no outgoing link metric available to
report.
Thus a router must be able to immediately decide on an incoming link
metric once it has heard a 1-hop neighbor on an OLSRv2 interface for
the first time. This is because, on receiving a HELLO message from
this router, that 1-hop neighbor will (unless link quality indicates
otherwise) immediately consider the link to be symmetric and use it.
It may, depending on the physical nature of the link metric, be too
early for an ideal decision as to that metric, however a choice must
be made. The metric value may later be refined based on further
observation of HELLO messages, other message transmissions between
the routers, or other observations of the environment. It will
probably be best to over-estimate the metric if initially uncertain
as to its value, to discourage, rather than over-encourage, its use.
If no information other than the receipt of the HELLO message is
available, then a conservative maximum link metric value, in [OLSRv2]
denoted MAXIMUM_METRIC, should be used.
5.6. Link Metric Values
Link metric values are recorded in LINK_METRIC TLVs, defined in
[OLSRv2], using a compressed representation that occupies 12 bits.
The use of 12 bits is convenient because, when combined with 4 flag
bits of additional information, described below, this produced a 2
octet value field. However the use of 12 bits was a result from a
design to use a modified exponent/mantissa form with the following
characteristics:
o The values represented are to be positive integers starting 1, 2,
...
o The maximum value represented should be close to, but less than
2^24 (^ denotes exponentiation in this section). This is so that
with a route limited to no more than 255 hops, the maximum route
metric is less than 2^32, i.e., can be stored in 32 bits. (The
link metric value can be stored in 24 bits.)
A representation, modified from an exponent/mantissa form with e bits
of exponent and m bits of mantissa, and which has the first of these
properties is one that starts at 1, then is incremented by 1 up to
2^m, then has a further 2^m increments by 2, then a further 2^m
increments by 4, and so on for 2^e sets of increments.
The position in the increment sequence, from 0 to 2^m-1, is
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
considered as a form of mantissa, and denoted b. The increment
sequence number, from 0 to 2^e-1, is considered as a form of
exponent, and denoted a.
The value represented by (a,b) can then be shown to be equal to (2^m+
b+1)2^a-2^m. To verify this, note that:
o With fixed a, the difference between two values with consecutive
values of b is 2^a, as expected.
o The value represented by (a,2^m-1) is (2^m+2^m)2^a-2^m. The value
represented by (a+1,0) is (2^m+1)(2^(a+1))-2^m. The difference
between these two values is 2^(a+1), as expected.
The maximum represented value has a = 2^e-1 and b = 2^m-1, and is
(2^m+2^m)(2^(2^e-1))-2^m = 2^(2^e+m)-2^m. This is slightly less than
2^(2^e+m). The required 24 bit limit can be achieved if 2^e+m = 24.
An appropriate pair of values to achieve this is e = 4, m = 8.
As noted above, the 12 bit representation shares two octets with 4
flag bits. Putting the flag bits first, it is then natural to put
the exponent bits in the last four bits of the first octet, and to
put the mantissa bits in the second octet. The 12 consecutive bits,
using normal network octet ordering (high first) then represent
256a+b. Note that the ordering of these 12 bit representation values
is the same as the ordering of the 24 bit metric values. In other
words two 12 bit metrics fields can be compared for equality/ordering
as if they were unsigned integers.
The four flag bits each represent one kind of metric, defined by its
direction (incoming or outgoing) and whether the metric is a link
metric or a neighbor metric. As indicated by the flag bits set, a
metric value may be of any combination of these four kinds of metric.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
6. MPRs with Link Metrics
MPRs are used for two purposes in OLSRv2. In both cases it is MPR
selectors that are actually used, MPR selectors being determined from
MPRs advertised in HELLO messages.
o Optimized Flooding. This uses the MPR selector status of
symmetric 1-hop neighbor routers from which messages are received
in order to determine if these messages are to be forwarded. MPR
selector status is recorded in the Neighbor Set (defined in
[RFC6130] and extended in [OLSRv2]), and determined from received
HELLO messages.
o Routing. Non-local link information is based on information
recorded in this router's Topology Information Base. That
information is based on received TC messages. The neighbor
information in these TC messages consists of addresses of the
originating router's advertised (1-hop) neighbors, as recorded in
that router's Neighbor Set (defined in [RFC6130] and extended in
[OLSRv2]). These advertised neighbors include all of the MPR
selectors of the originating router.
Metrics interact with these two uses of MPRs differently, as
described in the following two sections, and which leads to the
requirement for two separate sets of MPRs for these two uses when
using metrics. The relationship between these two sets of MPRs is
considered in Section 6.3.
6.1. Flooding MPRs
MPR selection for flooding can ignore metrics. Selection using any
algorithm that ignores metrics, including any allowed by [OLSRv2],
will produce a flooding solution that works.
However, that does not mean that metrics cannot be usefully
considered in selecting such "flooding MPRs". Consider the network
in Figure 2, where numbers are metrics of links in the direction away
from router A, towards router D.
3
A ----- B
| |
1 | | 1
| |
C ----- D
4
Figure 2
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
Which is the better flooding MPR selection by router A: B or C? If
the metric represents probability of message loss, then clearly
choosing B maximizes the probability of a message sent by A reaching
D. This is despite that C has a lower metric in its connection to A
than B does. (Similar arguments about a preference for B can be made
if, for example, the metric represents bandwidth or delay rather than
probability of loss.)
However, neither should only the second hop be considered. If this
example is modified to that in Figure 3, where the numbers still are
metrics of links in the direction away from router A, towards router
D:
3
A ----- B
| |
1 | | 3
| |
C ----- D
4
Figure 3
then it is possible that, when A is selecting flooding MPRs,
selecting C is preferable to selecting B. If the metrics represent
scaled values of delay, or the probability of loss, then selecting C
is clearly better. This indicates that the sum of metrics is an
appropriate measure to use to choose between B and C.
However, this is a particularly simple example. Usually it is not a
simple choice between two routers as a flooding MPR, each only adding
one router coverage. A more general process, when considering which
router to next add as a flooding MPR, should incorporate the metric
to that router, and the metric from that router to each symmetric
2-hop neighbor, as well as the number of newly covered symmetric
2-hop neighbors as well as the other factors used in the example
algorithm in [OLSRv2].
A candidate algorithm for flooding MPR selection is described in
[OLSRv2]. However, note that in [OLSRv2] (as in [RFC3626]), each
router can make its own independent choice of flooding MPRs, and
flooding MPR selection algorithms, and still interoperate.
Also note that the references above to the direction of the metrics
is correct: for flooding, directional metrics outward from a router
are appropriate, i.e., metrics in the direction of the flooding.
This is an additional reason for including outward metrics in HELLO
messages, as otherwise a metric-aware MPR selection for flooding is
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
not possible. The second hop metrics are outgoing neighbor metrics
because the OLSRv2 interface used for a second hop transmission may
not be the same as that used for the first hop reception.
6.2. Routing MPRs
The essential detail of the MPR selection specification in [OLSRv2]
is that a router must, per OLSRv2 interface, select a set of MPRs
such that there is a two hop route from each symmetric 2-hop neighbor
of the selecting router to the selecting router, with the
intermediate router on each such route being an MPR of the selecting
router.
It is sufficient, when using an additive link metric rather than a
hop count, to require that these "routing MPRs" provide not just a
two hop route, but a minimum distance two hop route. In addition, a
router is a symmetric 2-hop neighbor even if it is a symmetric 1-hop
neighbor, as long as there is a two hop route from it that is shorter
than the one hop link from it. (The property that no routes go
through routers with willingness WILL_NEVER is retained. Examples
below assume that all routers are equally willing, with none having
willingness WILL_NEVER.)
For example, consider the network in Figure 4. Numbers are metrics
of links in the direction towards router A, away from router D.
Router A must pick router B as a routing MPR, whereas for minimum hop
count routing it could alternatively pick router C. Note that the use
of incoming neighbor metrics in this case follows the same reasoning
as for the directionality of metrics in TC messages, as described in
Section 5.4.
2
A ----- B
| |
1 | | 1
| |
C ----- D
3
Figure 4
In Figure 5, where numbers are metrics of links in the direction
towards router A, away from router C, router A must pick router B as
a routing MPR, but for minimum hop count routing it would not need to
pick any MPRs.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
1
A - B
\ |
4 \ | 2
\|
C
Figure 5
In Figure 6, where numbers are metrics of links in the direction
towards router A, away from routers D and E, router A must pick both
routers B and C as routing MPRs, but for minimum hop count routing it
could pick either.
D E
|\ /|
| \ 3 / |
| \ / |
1 | \/ | 1
| /\ |
| / \ |
| / 2 \ |
|/ \|
B C
\ |
\ /
3 \ / 2
\ /
A
Figure 6
It is shown in Appendix A that selecting routing MPRs according to
this definition, and advertising only such links (plus knowledge of
local links from HELLO messages), will result in selection of lowest
total metric routes, even if all links (advertised or not) are
considered in the definition of a shortest route.
However the definition noted above as sufficient for routing MPR
selection is not necessary. For example, consider the network in
Figure 7, where numbers are metrics of links in the direction towards
router A, away from other routers; the metrics from B to C and C to B
are both assumed to be 2.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
1
A ----- B
\ /
4 \ / 2
\ /
C ----- D ----- E
3 5
Figure 7
Using the above definition, A must pick both B and C as routing MPRs,
in order to cover the symmetric 2-hop neighbors C and D,
respectively. (C is a symmetric 2-hop neighbor because the route
length via B is shorter than the 1-hop link.)
However, A only needs to pick B as a routing MPR, because the only
reason to pick C as a routing MPR would be so that C can advertise
the link to A for routing - to be used by, for example, E. But A
knows that no other router should use the link C to A in a shortest
route, because routing via B is shorter. So if there is no need to
advertise the link from C to A, then there is no reason for A to
select C as a routing MPR.
This process of "thinning out" the routing MPR selection uses only
local information from HELLO messages. Using any minimum distance
algorithm, the router identifies shortest routes, whether one, two or
more hops, from all routers in its symmetric 2-hop neighborhood. It
then selects as MPRs all symmetric 1-hop neighbors that are the last
router (before the selecting router itself) on any such route. Where
there is more than one shortest distance route from a router, only
one such route is required. Alternative routes may be selected so as
to minimize the number of last routers - this is the equivalent to
the selection of a minimal set of MPRs in the non-metric case.
Note that this only removes routing MPRs whose selection can be
directly seen to be unnecessary. Consequently if (as is shown in
Appendix A) the first approach creates minimum distance routes, then
so does this process.
The examples in Figure 5 and Figure 6 show that use of link metrics
may require a router to select more routing MPRs than when not using
metrics, and even require a router to select routing MPRs when
without metrics it would not need any routing MPRs. This may result
in more, and larger, messages being generated, and forwarded more
often. Thus the use of link metrics is not without cost, even
excluding the cost of link metric signaling.
These examples consider only single OLSRv2 interface routers.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
However if routers have more than one OLSRv2 interface, then the
process is unchanged, other than that if there is more than one known
metric between two routers (on different OLSRv2 interfaces), then,
considering symmetric links only (as only these are used for routing)
the smallest link metric, i.e., the neighbor metric, is used. There
is no need to calculate routing MPRs per OLSRv2 interface. That
requirement results from the consideration of flooding and the need
to avoid certain "race" conditions, which are not relevant to
routing, only to flooding.
A candidate algorithm for routing MPR selection is described in
[OLSRv2]. However, note that in [OLSRv2] (as in [RFC3626]), each
router can make its own independent choice of routing MPRs, and
routing MPR selection algorithms, and still interoperate.
6.3. Relationship Between MPR Sets
It would be convenient if the two sets of flooding and routing MPRs
were the same. This can be the case if all metrics are equal, but in
general, for "good" sets of MPRs they are not. (A reasonable
definition of this is that there is no common minimal set of MPRs.)
If metrics are asymmetrically valued (the two sets of MPRs use
opposite direction metrics), or routers have multiple OLSRv2
interfaces (where routing MPRs can ignore this, but flooding MPRs
cannot) this is particularly unlikely. However even using a
symmetrically valued metric with a single OLSRv2 interface on each
router, the ideal sets need not be equal, nor is one always a subset
of the other. To show this, consider these examples, where all
lettered routers are assumed equally willing to be MPRs, and numbers
are bidirectional metrics for links.
In Figure 8, A does not require any flooding MPRs. However A must
select B as a routing MPR.
1
A - B
\ |
4 \ | 2
\|
C
Figure 8
In Figure 9, A must select C and D as routing MPRs. However A's
minimal set of flooding MPRs is just B. In this example the set of
routing MPRs serves as a set of flooding MPRs, but a non-minimal one
(although one that might be better, depending on the relative
importance of number of MPRs and flooding link metrics).
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
2
C --- E
/ /
1 / / 1
/ 4 /
A --- B
\ \
1 \ \ 1
\ \
D --- F
2
Figure 9
However, this is not always the case. In Figure 10, A's set of
routing MPRs must contain B, but need not contain C. A's set of
flooding MPRs need not contain B, but must contain C. (In this case,
flooding with A selecting B rather than C as a flooding MPR will
reach D, but in three hops rather than the minimum two that MPR
flooding guarantees.)
2 1
B - C - D
| /
1 | / 4
|/
A
Figure 10
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
This section may be removed by the RFC Editor.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
8. Security Considerations
This document does not specify any security considerations.
This section may be removed by the RFC Editor.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the following people
for intense technical discussions, early reviews and comments on the
specification and its components (listed alphabetically): Brian
Adamson (NRL), Alan Cullen (BAE Systems), Justin Dean (NRL), Stan
Ratliff (Cisco), Charles Perkins (Huawei), Henning Rogge (FGAN), and
Ulrich Herberg (Fujitsu).
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
10. 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.
[RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dean, J., Dearlove, C., and C. Adjih,
"Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444,
February 2009.
[RFC6130] Clausen, T., Dean, J., and C. Dearlove, "Mobile Ad Hoc
Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
RFC 6130, April 2011.
[OLSRv2] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and P. Jacquet, "The Optimized
Link State Routing Protocol version 2",
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt (work in progress),
May 2012.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
Appendix A. MPR Routing Property
In order that routers can find and use shortest routes in a network
while using the minimum reduced topology supported by OLSRv2 (that a
router only advertises its MPR selectors in TC messages), routing MPR
selection must result in the property that there are shortest routes
with all intermediate routers being routing MPRs.
This appendix uses the following terminology and assumptions:
o The network is a graph of nodes connected by arcs, where nodes
correspond to routers with willingness not equal to WILL_NEVER
(except possibly at the ends of routes). An arc corresponds to
the set of symmetric links connecting those routers; the OLSRv2
interfaces used by those links are not relevant.
o Each arc has a metric in each direction, being the minimum of the
corresponding link metrics in that direction, i.e., the
corresponding neighbor metric. This metric must be positive.
o A sequence of arcs joining two nodes is referred to as a path.
o Node A is an MPR of node B, if corresponding router A is a routing
MPR of router B.
The required property (of using shortest routes with reduced
topology) is equivalent to that for any pair of distinct nodes X and
Z there is a shortest path from X to Z, X - Y1 - Y2 - ... - Ym - Z
such that Y1 is an MPR of Y2, ... Ym is an MPR of Z. Call such a
path a routable path, and call this property the routable path
property.
The required definition for a node X selecting MPRs is that for each
distinct node Z from which there is a two arc path, there is a
shorter, or equally short, path which is either Z - Y - X where Y is
an MPR of X, or is the one arc path Z - X. Note that the existence of
locally known, shorter, but more than two arc paths, which can be
used to reduce the numbers of MPRs, is not considered here. (Such
reductions are only when the remaining MPRs can be seen to retain all
necessary shortest paths, and therefore retains the required
property.)
Although this appendix is concerned with paths with minimum total
metric, not number of arcs (hop count), it proceeds by induction on
the number of arcs in a path. Although it considers minimum metric
routes with a bounded number of arcs, it then allows that number of
arcs to increase so that overall minimum metric paths, regardless of
the number of arcs, are considered.
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
Specifically, the routable path property is a corollary of the
property that for all positive integers n, and all distinct nodes X
and Z, if there is any path from X to Z of n arcs or fewer, then
there is a shortest path, from among those of n arcs or fewer, that
is a routable path. This may be called the n-arc routable path
property.
The n-arc routable path property is trivial for n = 1, and directly
follows from the definition of the MPRs of Z for n = 2.
Proceeding by induction, assuming the n-arc routable path property is
true for n = k, consider the case that n = k+1.
Suppose that X - V1 - V2 - ... - Vk - Z is a shortest k+1 arc path
from X to Z. We construct a path which has no more than k+1 arcs, has
the same or shorter length (hence has the same, shortest, length
considering only paths of up to k+1 arcs, by assumption) and is a
routable path.
First consider whether Vk is an MPR of Z. If it is not then consider
the two arc path Vk-1 - Vk - Z. This can be replaced either by a one
arc path Vk-1 - Z or by a two arc path Vk-1 - Wk - Z where Wk is an
MPR of Z, such that the metric from Vk-1 to Z by the replacement path
is no longer. In the former case (replacement one arc path) this now
produces a path of length k, and the previous inductive step may be
applied. In the latter case we have replaced Vk by Wk, where Wk is
an MPR of Z. Thus we need only consider the case that Vk is an MPR of
Z.
We now apply the previous inductive step to the path X - V1 - ... -
Vk-1 - Vk, replacing it by an equal length path X - W1 - ... Wm-1 -
Vk, where m <= k, where this path is a routable path. Then because
Vk is an MPR of Z, the path X - W1 - ... - Wm-1 - Vk - Z is a
routable path, and demonstrates the n-arc routable path property for
n = k+1.
This thus shows that for any distinct nodes X and Z, there is a
routable path using the MPR-reduced topology from X to Z, i.e., that
OLSRv2 finds minimum length paths (minimum total metric routes).
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft OLSRv2 Link Metrics July 2012
Authors' Addresses
Christopher Dearlove
BAE Systems ATC
Phone: +44 1245 242194
EMail: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com
URI: http://www.baesystems.com/
Thomas Heide Clausen
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, France
Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/
Philippe Jacquet
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Phone: +33 6 7337 1880
EMail: philippe.jacquet@alcatel-lucent.fr
Dearlove, et al. Expires January 7, 2013 [Page 29]
