[manet] Re: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-templin-6man- mla-32.txt

Hi Christopher, the key element for MANET Internetworking is a non-broadcast, multiple access (NBMA) encapsulating virtual interface which I have been talking about continuously since Y2K. Back then it was known as ISATAP which became a successful protocol in its own right [RFC4214/5214], but has since evolved to become OMNI which offers IMHO the best way forward for MANET Internetworking futures.

Thank you - Fred

From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 8:26 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [manet] Re: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.


That was very much early days. I doubt anything in it is where to start today.


On 20 Mar 2026, at 14:06, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi Christopher, I glanced through your paper which looks interesting but I don’t see where it anticipates bridging disjoint MANET local routing regions over the Internet as transit. MANET Internetworking is not an extension of OLSRv2, and does not extend OLSRv2 over the interdomain. MANET Internetworking is based on an encapsulation virtual interface termed the “OMNI Interface” often represented as “omni0”. So, turning back to OLSRv2 terms you would assign an IP address to the OMNI interface and feed “omni0” into OLSRv2 instead of “lo”.

MANET Internetworking is independent of the MANET local routing protocol which can be OLSRv2 or could instead be any other MANET routing protocol. And, the MANET routing protocol used in the source MANET domain can be totally different than the routing protocol used in the target MANET domain. This is due to the fact that the interdomain routing is based on BGP and not what one would consider a “traditional” MANET routing protocol.

Thank you - Fred

From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 3:00 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [manet] Re: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.


Yes. For some DLEP was a key issue. For others it diverted the group from where they wanted to go. Those can both be true.

Internetworking ideas were part of the motivation for one the changes from OLSR(v1) to OLRv2. I think the first we (my employer) published on that wa http://interop.thomasclausen.org/Interop05/Papers/Papers/paper-01.pdf but the ideas were older of course. In that paper we discuss adding a hop count to a gateway, unlike OLSR(v1). Later of course we (OLSRv2 authors, as required by WG) also added a metric, when we added those to all links.

There are then two things missing from OLSRv2 - two connected things. One is deciding on a hop count/metric at a gateway, the other is networking the gateways. And of course addressing. (And avoiding the chicken and egg of that OLSRv2 can create the network to deliver addresses, except of course it needs addresses to do that.)

But the autoconf group had problems before you got to that point. The resolution was that mobile devices in a MANET are routers (hence why OLRv2 calls them that, not nodes). Because those who wanted the MANET to be an IP subnet and behave like an ethernet ran into physics. (Radio connectivity is not transitive.) It took a long time to get to that point, and by the time it was reached, the energy had gone.



On 17 Mar 2026, at 22:48, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Chris, AFAICT you and I  are two of the more senior members of this community who still occasionally post and show continued interest. But, another possible explanation for why few “old-timers” remain is that the emphasis of the working group has shifted several times over the years. First, it was about efficient routing protocols, and the designers of those protocols attended to their work then moved on to other things. Then, the wg became more focused on DLEP and a different cast of contributors again came and went. Then, the merger with Babel happened and it surprises me that we don’t hear more about Babel here.

But, this subject of MANET Internetworking got started around Y2K and has been an unspoken big-picture consideration ever since.  We have now reached a point where we can articulate it as we do in our drafts and as we did in our presentation yesterday. The subject now having been articulated, my hope is that it may breathe some new life into the wg in the form of more discussion as we seem to be beginning to see.

About Multilink Local Addresses (MLAs), the IETF autoconf working group was originally looking to define a “MANET Local Address” but ran into a crossroads where consensus couldn’t be reached. They published RFC5889 stating: “For IPv6, these addresses may be global [RFC3587], Unique-Local [RFC4193] or Link-Local [RFC4291]” and then further explained why Link -Local Addresses (LLAs) are of limited use saying: “Therefore, autoconfiguration solutions should be encouraged to primarily focus on configuring IP addresses that are not IPv6 link-local”.

The MLA draft addresses the need for a new IPv6 address type that is something less than global scope but something more than link-local scope. Whenever you have an IPv6 address type, you need to tell what interface the address is assigned to per RFC4291. The MLA draft explains that the MLA is assigned to the OMNI interface, and our MANET Internetworking presentation explains why that is important.

Thank you - Fred


From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:44 AM
To: Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.


Old participants have moved on. If they were really interested they’d make occasional appearances (such as I do). If they are lurking, and see a reason to chip in, great. But you can’t rely on anything from them - and most especially you can’t require anything from them. People are here either because they are interested, and interests move on (often when they get their PhD) or it’s their job, and employers move on too (mine did).




On 17 Mar 2026, at 09:26, Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your presentation in the 125 meeting, I am interested in this draft, and did not complete my reply comment on this draft, but I think this draft is facing an important issue that the old participants in this WG did not write drafts on, and if I am wrong please refer me with some old drafts.

I think it is important that we get feedback from old participants if they discussed these issues or not.

thanking you,

AB

On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 7:26 PM Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi, here is a draft that proposes a new IPv6 address type for use in Ad Hoc Networks. The Multilink-Local Address (MLA) has a scope greater than link-local (LLA) but lesser than other Globally Unique (GUA) address types. IPv6 packets with MLA source and/or destination addresses may be routable within a limited domain (such as a virtual overlay) but may not be globally routable to other networks. MLAs are guaranteed globally unique so that no conflicts should arise when multiple nodes inject their MLAs into a common MANET routing region. MLAs use the same specification as for the RFC9374 HHIT/DET construct. Please review and comment on the list.

Fred Templin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 8:41 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt

Internet-Draft draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt is now available.

   Title:   IPv6 Addresses for Ad Hoc Networks
   Author:  Fred L. Templin
   Name:    draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt
   Pages:   12
   Dates:   2026-02-16

Abstract:

   Ad Hoc networks present an IPv6 addressing challenge due to the
   undetermined neighborhood properties of their interfaces.  IPv6 nodes
   must assign locally-unique and topology-independent IPv6 addresses
   when topology-oriented IPv6 address delegation services are either
   absent or only intermittently available.  This document introduces a
   new IPv6 address type (termed the "Multilink Local Address (MLA)")
   that nodes can autonomously assign to interfaces to support Ad Hoc
   network operations.

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-mla/

There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-6man-mla-32

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-templin-6man-mla-32

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

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