[manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking

Some of the recent emails presume that MANET radios are IP routers and radios *only* route using IP, so that questions arise with whether you decrement TTL for each radio hop.  Similar questions arise with overlay/underlay networks and MANET wireless networking getting partitioned.  And, also multihop MANET networks that get partitioned lead to the issues raised in RFC 4903 about Multi-Link Subnet Issues.



So the MANET IETF working group also needs to consider MANET wireless networks where the wireless MANET routing is below IP – similar to how Ethernet switches route below IP.   This eliminates the TTL issues.  And overlay/underlay networks (whether MANET radios route using IP or below IP) can allow MANET radios in one IP subnet to transmit to another radio in that MANET wireless network that is in a different IP subnet.  And overlay/underlay can be adapted to solve Multi-Link Subnet issues as well



For a longer discussion about MANETs that route below IP, see my 07 June 2012 14:36 UTC email on[manet] MANET Routing Below IP (spin off from Subnet Definition thread)<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/fHvwbCqLl7oCPQAk4BWfq8ruzJI/> and the follow-on email responses.



As I wrote in that old email, most of the MANET waveforms (and associated MANET protocols) - that I helped design, develop, and field - perform MANET routing below IP.  (Note that I used the term “waveform” as defined by the US Department of Defense in DODI 4630.09 as typically including multiple OSI layers including the Physical, Data Link, and Networking layers.)



Jim Stevens



|  Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:28:11 +0000

|  From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

|  Subject: [manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking

|  To: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

|  Cc: manet <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

|

|  Juliusz, thank you for bringing this information forward. I understand the motivation

|  but when we configure an Overlay Multilink Network Interface on each MANET router

|  we can use standard and unmodified IPv6 autoconfiguration protocols (IPv6 ND per

|  RFC4861/2 and DHCPv6 per RFC8415) since all MANET routers are single-hop

|  neighbors on a shared NBMA link. It would work the same way for any MANET

|  routing protocol (including your BABEL system) and take advantage of widely-

|  deployed standard protocols - I use unmodified kea and radvd in the reference

|  implementation I am building.

|

|  So, thinking of your BABEL where all nodes configure a statistically-unique 8-octet

|  router ID, if the border node were configured to send RA messages over the OMNI

|  link with PIO flags set to A=1; L=0 you could do true SLAAC and just not consider

|  the prefix on-link. DAD would be optimistic per RFC4429, and it should all just work.

|  You could then even register the SLAAC-configured address with the DHCPv6

|  server to make a stateful registration of the address.

|

|  Thank you - Fred

|

|  > -----Original Message-----

|  > From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

|  > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:53 PM

|  > To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

|  > Cc: manet <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

|  > Subject: [manet] Re: MANET WG Charter and MANET Internetworking

|  >

|  > >>> The two autoconfiguration alternatives are 1) stateless based on SLAAC,

|  >

|  > >> SLAAC doesn't work with routers.  We've all tried, but it cannot possibly

|  > >> work.

|  >

|  > > I used the term SLAAC in an imprecise way.

|  >

|  > Ah, okay then.

|  >

|  > > Can we conceptualize an 8+8 address autoconfiguration scheme where

|  > > the only "state" is the MANET router's unique interface identifier

|  >

|  > Not only can we conceptualise it, I've actually implemented it back in

|  > 2007.  Unfortunately, I then changed everything, in order to make it into

|  > a stateful protocol:

|  >

|  >   https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dchroboczek-2Dahcp_&d=DwIGaQ&c=MASr1KIcYm9UGIT-jfIzwQg1YBeAkaJoBtxV_4o83uQ&r=Tw2ihBR45ca_q8fRdmKNDvtpW3UDjf_9LWW2Uw6NAyU&m=eAGQC8ies3ZT9u26_ju8Ot0fm5OFUIL9qteSv7UGFpsQtXGPNeaqkStWXtqIS7i8&s=LfNxNfyN39Rs6_7qY0OVMDau-2NLW5bmweNylyohj1I&e=

|  >   https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.irif.fr_-7Ejch_software_ahcp_&d=DwIGaQ&c=MASr1KIcYm9UGIT-jfIzwQg1YBeAkaJoBtxV_4o83uQ&r=Tw2ihBR45ca_q8fRdmKNDvtpW3UDjf_9LWW2Uw6NAyU&m=eAGQC8ies3ZT9u26_ju8Ot0fm5OFUIL9qteSv7UGFpsQtXGPNeaqkStWXtqIS7i8&s=ECVug1Zy1-qmF85NdFytUp1-nXc6QlIyfnRZLZ_h4M4&e=

|  >   https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_jech_ahcpd&d=DwIGaQ&c=MASr1KIcYm9UGIT-jfIzwQg1YBeAkaJoBtxV_4o83uQ&r=Tw2ihBR45ca_q8fRdmKNDvtpW3UDjf_9LWW2Uw6NAyU&m=eAGQC8ies3ZT9u26_ju8Ot0fm5OFUIL9qteSv7UGFpsQtXGPNeaqkStWXtqIS7i8&s=tW9u2WNsTi0kIFL1ualRaEBjgVyHgrg65bS82mIMlR8&e=

|  >

|  > I could probably recover the original stateless implementation.

|  >

|  >

|  > > This information could be propagated to all MANET routers by the MANET

|  > > routing protocol.

|  >

|  > Please, no.

|  >

|  >   https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dchroboczek-2Dhomenet-2Dconfiguration-2Dseparate_&d=DwIGaQ&c=MASr1KIcYm9UGIT-jfIzwQg1YBeAkaJoBtxV_4o83uQ&r=Tw2ihBR45ca_q8fRdmKNDvtpW3UDjf_9LWW2Uw6NAyU&m=eAGQC8ies3ZT9u26_ju8Ot0fm5OFUIL9qteSv7UGFpsQtXGPNeaqkStWXtqIS7i8&s=CNv_JJSejJoT-p7oxdbrl4pqNkp_3NHTwS3lZEmIfac&e=

|  >

|  > >>> Here again, an overlay multilink network interface is needed to

|  > >>> coordinate the multiple interfaces.

|  >

|  > >> I must have missed a step.  Why is that required?

|  >

|  > > To give all MANET routers the appearance of being on-link with the current

|  > > set of Internet access points and each other even if they may be multiple

|  > > hops away in the MANET underlay. The alternative in the DHCPv6 case is to

|  > > have all MANET routers also act as DHCPv6 relay agents, but that might not

|  > > work so well in dynamic MANETs with rapidly changing topologies.

|  >

|  > I don't agree that it's required.  It might, however, be a good idea,

|  > since it provides better layering than the alternative.

|  >

|  > -- Juliusz

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