[manet] Re: draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis-06.txt

Hi Christopher,


On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 9:39 PM Christopher Dearlove <
[email protected]> wrote:

> I haven’t made this comment before, but have been thinking about it.
>
> I am not convinced that the suggestion that there are billions of devices
> that might connect to a MANET is helpful.
>

I agree, the draft should amend this text and delete any assumption of
billions which is not reasonable.


> There are billions of phones out there.


billions phones but not using same domains/technologies

But for various reasons the architecture used is not a MANET. An important
> reason why is access control.


Agree,


> When you attempt to use your mobile phone, the base station you are trying
> to connect to verifies you are authored to do so. To that end it (or other
> parts of the network on its behalf) consults database(s) to determine both
> that and other information. Of course that is highly optimised in various
> ways, but that’s not important here, the key thing is that your phone is
> verified (and cryptographic stuff to confirm that and more is done, again
> details not important here).


> Why? Well, most importantly from the point of view of the operators is so
> they get paid. Also for various security related reasons.
>
> Now let’s consider a MANET. There are two obvious scenarios here. A small
> private network and a larger public network.
>

Yes the draft is trying to look into the large public network, so draft
should consider the size in thousand nodes,
Usually MANET technology using cell_phone or vehicle as nodes is of big
value in disaster scenarios when cellular networks fail.


> Let’s start with the small private network. Yes, there might be quite a
> lot more potential members than actual members at any time, but it’s still
> not in the billions range. Typical use case is an emergency services
> network (or a military network, though we tend not to mention that in
> RFCs). We have RFC 7183 whose purpose is to manage access to an OLSRv2
> network. The specific methods in there assume a shared secret key, although
> there is an alternative in RFC 7859, but both involve some sort of key
> distribution to all potential participants. That is hard enough at the
> hundreds or thousands level.
>
> Or there’s a network with public access. The likely equivalent to that is
> the Wi-Fi networks we find everywhere. Where typically we learn a key from
> a written instruction in our coffee shop or hotel. Or - popular on trains -
> there’ an authentication process that involves email addresses and network
> access. That’s not going help us, we will usually need security at a lower
> level and sooner. And doe this have to be free?
>

 I agree this managing access issue is important to be mentioned in the
draft, or manet group management solution,


> (I would be interested to know how the Freifunk network works here. Its it
> a third case? Or a variant of one of these?)
>
> Of course in the latter case billions is not irrelevant, but mostly
> because what it says is pre-existing addresses are unplanned and
> non-aggregatable. That happens well before billions. Unless new addresses
> are issued. But we still have the problem of how (assuming completely
> unsecured networks are not allowed in most cases and/or that someone wants
> to be paid) of how some sort of identity or key information is to be
> distributed. For the small private network where billions of users is not
> relevant, OK. For a network with internet access, maybe OK. For an isolated
> MANET as often assumed, not so OK.
>

 the addressing issue will need to solved or defined within the draft


> My point is that rising the billions of users without addressing these
> issues - at least making them problems - is likely to lead to discussions
> of the form above (or better ones) and hinder any progress of the draft.
>

I checked the draft but not found mentioned billion of users for manet. It
did mention only in the introduction section that billions are using
cellphones. However, suggesting the clarification that there should be a
reasonable limit to the MAX users/routers is important.

Best Regards,
AB

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