[manet] Re: MANET Internetworking: Problem Statement and G ap Analysis

We have billions of mobile devices today, but they are not using MANETs. They are using cellular base stations (from macrocells down to nanocells), Wi-Fi access points, and satellites. I don’t see this changing (other than that satellite is growing). Of course there are uses for MANETs or we wouldn’t be here, but I don’t see them in that billions of devices role. The only possible exception would be if they replaced wired private networks, but then they could just adopt the same addressing solutions that those already use, as they can be at least partly planned.

That’s not saying all MANETs have to be stub networks. Nor that addressing isn’t a problem when random devices connect (as distinct from the semi-managed private network noted above). But I don’t think it’s useful to discuss billions of devices, it just looks unrealistic if nothing else.


> On 3 Sep 2025, at 22:53, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> See below for a new draft motivated by recent discussions on the MANET mailing list
> and charter discussions at the IETF 123 MANET working group session. The draft
> identifies two distinct types of MANETs:
> 
> 1) True stub MANETS - those for which an Internet connection sharing node acts
> as a regular IP router on behalf of a downstream-attached personal local network
> consisting of end systems that can provide internal multihop forwarding services
> within the local area. An example is a cellphone with an attached 802.11 network
> operating in "ad-hoc" mode where some nodes may be separated by multiple WiFi
> hops. Such MANETs are likely to include a small-to-modest number of nodes in a
> common MANET routing protocol instance, and the local MANET nodes should be
> able to use (pseudo)random addresses taken from a suitably large address
> assignment space with little/no risk of collision.
> 
> 2) Not-so-stubby MANETs - those for which one or more Internet connection sharing
> nodes act as proxys at a layer below IP on behalf of peer nodes that may be multiple
> hops away from the nearest Internet infrastructure element. An example is a disaster
> relief team that enters an area of degraded infrastructure and where each person's
> cellphone supports device-to-device multihopping over the 5G/6G interface itself
> while providing Internet connection sharing services based on opportunistic
> infrastructure contacts. Again, such MANETs are likely to include a small-to-modest
> number of nodes engaged in a common MANET routing protocol instance.
> 
> From an Internetworking standpoint, however, each cellphone that connects
> to the Internet should be considered as a potential MANET router where the
> Internet itself becomes a "MANET-of-MANETs". The MANET Internetworking
> service should then support interconnection of MANETs using the Internet as
> transit based on virtual circuits established on-demand as an adaptation
> layer function.
> 
> So, the Internet would serve as a massive transit network for connecting
> small-to-modest sized MANETs on demand. With billions of MANET routers
> in the Internet, this means that the likelihood for address collision becomes
> non-negligible as demand-driven MANET--to-MANET virtual circuits are
> established and dissolved. This means that MANETs that opportunistically
> connect to the Internet require some form of administratively-assigned
> adaptation layer address - the Multilink Local Address (MLA).
> 
> So, the concern is not for massively-large MANETs that operate in a
> common routing protocol instance - that never was and never will be
> a practical environment for MANET routing protocols. The concern is
> for vast numbers of small to modest-sized MANETs that interconnect
> using the Internet as transit where there are no constraints on the
> nature of MANET-to-MANET interconnection events.
> 
> I realize this is a lot in one mail message, but your consideration of the
> draft with this high-level overview in mind is welcome.
> 
> Thank you - Fred
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 1:30 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject:  I-D Action: draft-templin-manet-inet-00.txt
> 
> Internet-Draft draft-templin-manet-inet-00.txt is now available.
> 
>   Title:   MANET Internetworking: Problem Statement and Gap Analysis
>   Authors: Fred L. Templin
>            Daniel J. Jakubisin
>   Name:    draft-templin-manet-inet-00.txt
>   Pages:   10
>   Dates:   2025-08-27
> 
> Abstract:
> 
>   [RFC2501] defines a MANET as "an autonomous system of mobile nodes.
>   The system may operate in isolation, or may have gateways to and
>   interface with a fixed network" (such as the global public Internet).
>   This document presents a MANET Internetworking problem statement and
>   gap analysis.
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-manet-inet/
> 
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-manet-inet-00
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce 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]

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