[manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking

AFAICT, RFC2501 is still the correct reference for most of what I have been saying.

Thank you - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2025 12:51 PM
> To: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
> Cc: manet <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: [manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking
> 
> Hi Juliusz,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2025 11:43 AM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Donald Eastlake <[email protected]>; manet <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking
> >
> > > The phrase "operate autonomously when isolated" means that there is
> > > a need for some form of unique IP addressing that is somehow gotten
> > > without the aide of supporting network infrastructure and has no
> > > Internet topological reference.  So that, when the MANET
> > > (opportunistically) attaches to the Internet, it can't simply inject an
> > > aggregated IP prefix into BGP. So, there are different classes of IP
> > > addresses needed - those gotten from infrastructure, and those made
> > > available for autonomous operation when isolated.
> >
> > There are some requirements here that you're not making explicit, and I'm
> > struggling to understand what they are.  Are you assuming that the MANET
> > starts up without having been assigned a globally-routable network prefix,
> > that it then connects to the Internet
> 
> Yes, for many MANETs (disaster relief, vehicle-to-vehicle communications, etc.) that
> is exactly what I am assuming. Each MANET node must have a unique IP address
> even if there is no common shared globally routable network prefix common to
> all nodes. The MANET then forms spontaneously based on the discovered network
> neighborhood according to a MANET routing protocol. Multihop routing is then
> possible outside of the context of any Internet infrastructure.
> 
> > and that it cannot renumber at that point?
> 
> When the MANET comes in contact with an Internet attachment point, one or
> a few nodes may be within wireless communications range of the attachment
> point while the majority of nodes may still be multiple hops away from the
> access point and still in need of their non-aggregated unique addresses. So,
> MANET-wide renumbering is possible but would be an onerous task and if the
> MANET moves again and comes in contact with a different access point then
> the whole process would have to be done all over again. Other processes that
> could be considered would be tunneling or translation - or possibly even
> tunneling together with translation.
> 
> > Where do these requirements come from?  Do they come from an actual usage
> > scenario?  Or have they been crafted in order to force the use of
> > a specific solution?
> 
> Not crafted in any rigged way, no. There have been many decades of investigation
> into MANET use cases (disaster relief, manned/unmanned vehicular communications,
> tactical military, many others) and they all have the commonality that a MANET can
> form based on an arbitrary collection of nodes coming together in a common operating
> region to spontaneously form a multi-hop connected network even outside of the
> presence of supporting Internet infrastructure.
> 
> Thank you - Fred
> 
> >
> > -- Juliusz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]