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

Well, it’s up to the WG to decide whether this line - which suggests that talk of a billion possible devices isn’t that useful - should be included or not. They have both of our comments.

> On 14 Aug 2026, at 16:31, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Christopher, I am going to abandon this line of discussion:
> 
>>> Authorization and key management are a red herring in this discussion.
> 
> A MANET is not the same thing as a WiFi SSID as the integrity of the MANET routing information base needs to be assured. So, lower-layer security for (multi-hop) MANETs is more critical than for (single-hop) WiFi SSIDs. Just the same, people can and do operate MANETs with no lower-layer security but that may be risky out in open networks outside of controlled environments.
> 
> Thank you - Fred
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 7:22 AM
>> To: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: [manet] Re: draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis-06.txt
>> 
>> Hi Christopher,
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 4:19 PM
>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis-06.txt
>>> 
>>>>> On 13 Aug 2026, at 22:55, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Christoper,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I appreciate these comments and take it as input that the draft should strive for better balance when talking about numbers. The intention
>>> is not to predict a doomsday scenario where one day all worldwide wireless infrastructure collapses leaving people's cellphones to fend for
>>> themselves. Yet, anyone's cellphone can at  any time find itself operating outside of cellular coverage and if there are others nearby it should
>>> be capable of forming a MANET.
>>> 
>>> Something I meant to note but didn’t i that LTE was developing a mobile to mobile interface. The interest was from emergency services. I
>>> don’t know if it was standardised, or even if it was if implemented. If that went more than one hop you have a MANET. But that would most
>>> obviously grow from a point attached the main network (which might not be the internet). Whether a pure peer to peer network with no
>>> attachment was considered I don’t know. And in any case, this come under the heading of pre-authorised devices.
>> 
>> LTE called it "proximity services" (ProSe) which was the pre-cursor to 5G "SideLink" which 3GPP is currently writing into the standards.
>> 
>>>> Yes, this might require asking someone for the shared secret key, but the technology to support the operating mode should be attainable.
>>> 
>>> As soon as you say hared secret key, you’ve limited the size of your group of potential members drastically. And have to think about how to
>>> hare it. It’s been said encryption I say, key management is hard. (OK, here we’re talking authentication not encryption - though that is a next
>>> step - but same principle.)
>> 
>> Authorization and key management are a red herring in this discussion. Not all MANETs will have a centralized administrative authority
>> responsible for handing out keys; many will be truly open access just as many WiFi SSIDs do not require a password. My Android phone lets
>> me turn off security on my WiFi hotspot.
>> 
>>>> For this reason, I think the draft could be improved by regarding all cellphones as *potential* MANET routers. Whether many or even any
>>> ever become *functional* MANET routers is besides the point and not relevant to the fact that they could support the operating mode if
>>> programmed to do so.
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure that’ the point. Erything is a potential MANET node if Android and Apple implement it.
>> 
>> Cellphones have both 5G (soon to support SideLink) and WiFi (already supports mesh/IBSS) which are both excellent candidate MANET
>> Interface types. The hardware underpinnings for a potential MANET router are already in place in modern cellphones, and should therefore
>> be noted as such.
>> 
>>>> Not all that long ago, not too many people imagined that one day a cellphone could act as a WiFi hotspot but in modern times that function
>>> is widely deployed and used all the time. I am not saying with certainty that there will come a day that all cellphones become MANET
>> routers,
>>> but the *potential* is already present in devices anyone can buy off the shelf at least from the hardware perspective.
>>> 
>>> But while I use the tethering feature of ny phone a lot (right now in fact) only devices I have specifically authoried to ue that hotpot can do
>> so.
>>> And right now that is two devices (except one is failing to connect).
>> 
>> The password could be removed if you wanted to allow open access to your cellphone's SSID just as many more traditional WiFi hotspots
>> support open access SSIDs. Access authentication is a red herring in this discussion.
>> 
>> I will make a deal with you - as soon as everyone stops using their phones as WiFi hotspots I will stop saying cellphones are potential MANET
>> routers.
>> 
>> Thank you - Fred
>> 
>>>> Thank you - Fred
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 12:39 PM
>>>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
>>>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis-06.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are billions of phones out there. But for various reasons the architecture used is not a MANET. An important reason why is access
>>>>> control. 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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]