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

Hi Fred,

I read the draft but still need to see the interest/solution in
disaster_scenarios, which your assumption was not clear to me, as we using
5G network/cells or only MANETs, I think your use case is using the
internet of wireless_terrestrial_network/5G_network, so I don't think we
can say MANET of MANETs, because the 5G network already is using its
management protocols and routing protocols that are different to MANET. Or
please explain from where some of the cell phones/router are getting the
internet service? I think the draft needs to identify the terrestrial
network as use cases, IMHO to make it general will never help.

AB> more below

On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:54 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=
[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.
>
>
yes this is ok


> 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.
>

Ok, we have more than one MANET, so we will have let say three MANETs with
established addresses.


>
> 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 internet provider's net should not be considered as MANET, usually that
internet is the wireless infrastructure_terrestrial_network, and not MANET
of MANETs. Usually our MANET is at the layer 3 or 4.


> 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.
>

ok so do you mean that is at layer 4 ? we need to be clear to determine the
service access point.


> 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).
>

usually this adaptation layer address is already provided by the internet
provider's net, so do you mean that your scenario assumes that there is no
administrative assignment provided within that large network that covers
disaster locations/regions?

we need to answer the above before considering the number of mobiles per
region and number of MANETs per disaster solution.


> 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.


ok, I understand


> 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 think the draft needs more definitions and clarifying the disaster
networking.

Best Regards
AB

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