[manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking

Julien, we need to get out into the open what the alternatives are and what their
advantages or limitations are before we can settle on charter text. The two
autoconfiguration alternatives are 1) stateless based on SLAAC, and 2) stateful
based on DHCPv6 and they have associated advantages/limitations in terms of
MANET Internetworking. In my understanding, SLAAC may be applicable if the
MANET router will only ever act as a MANET router and never engage the Internet
as a fully-fledged mobile node acting on its own behalf through DMM. It isn't clear
to me how the SLAAC MANET router becomes authorized to use the services of the
Internet infrastructure point of attachment, however, and I think authentication
and authorization are an important aspect of MANET Internetworking. The
stateful approach is compatible with the generalized mobile node model
according to DMM; each MANET router may sometimes be in a MANET doing
MANET things and at other times connect directly through Internet infrastructure
doing mobile node things. When the MANET router has multiple interfaces, it is
possible to have both access methods operational at the same time. Here again,
an overlay multilink network interface is needed to coordinate the multiple
interfaces. These items need to be reflected in the charter text.

Thank you - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 5:02 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> Cc: Donald Eastlake <[email protected]>; manet <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking
> 
> > Thanks for this Donald, but I feel we may need to reset this discussion
> > somewhat
> 
> I most respectfully disagree, Fred.  I think Donald's text is pretty good.
> 
> Donald writes:
> 
> > The working group will analyze existing standard protocols and
> > established practices to identify gaps in providing these services.
> 
> I read this as being carefully crafted to allow the WG to work on issues
> other than the ones that are explicitly listed earlier in the text.  In
> particular, if the WG thinks that using PI addresses and absence of
> renumbering are important issues, then the above sentence allows us to
> identify that as a gap and work on it.
> 
> > This naturally brings encapsulation, prefix delegation and DMM into the
> > discussion.
> 
> Perhaps.  (I frankly don't know, I haven't thought about it.)
> 
> But whether this is the case or not, we must make sure that the charter is
> not written so as to force a given solution.  And I understand that's what
> Donald is trying to do.
> 
> -- Juliusz

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]