[manet] Re: BABEL question

Juliusz and Henning,

The overall sense I get from your previous two messages is that you seem to be focused on
individual small-sized MANETs taken in isolation and that never merge with other MANETs.
The world view behind my vision is that all (mobile) nodes on the Internet should be prepared
to act as MANET routers in MANETs they may happen to encounter as they move about. Each
mobile node can then dynamically change between different MANETs as it moves, and MANETs
can partition and merge freely as they come in contact with one another or move apart. And,
each mobile node needs an assured-unique address that it can use within its current MANET.

The population should therefore be sized at a minimum to the number of people on the
planet and then doubled at a minimum to account for unmanned/autonomous systems.
So, the population size should be on the order of 10^10 with aspirations of becoming
larger still.

Henning mentioned a concern for coding administrative information in the routing prefix,
but that has already happened with RFC9374. I understand the concern, but what it means
is that we should not have lots and lots of such special-purpose short IPv6 prefixes when
all we really need is one or a few.

Thank you - Fred
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 4:18 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> Cc: Henning Rogge <[email protected]>; [email protected] List <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [manet] Re: BABEL question
> 
> > Without such a registration authority, it is truly every node for itself and
> > just a matter of statistical good luck that there will be no collisions. The
> > two approaches are really the difference between responsible address
> > administration and anarchy.
> 
> Fred, there's really no need to bring political ideologies into what is an
> engineering discussion.  Do you have a technical argument that indicates
> that using a flat space will cause issues that are avoided by adding more
> bureaucracy?  I'd expect the argument to include probability computations.
> 
> -- Juliusz

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