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

Christopher, while I agree with you that lower-layer security for MANETs is a SHOULD, that point has no relevance to scale in terms of numbers of nodes and the two subjects are not connected in any way. Every cellphone is a potential MANET router and can therefore be considered as a MANET unto itself (along with any of its personal devices).

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 3:19 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: 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]