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

All cellphones are MANET (border) routers making the mobile Internet a "MANET-of-MANETs". Scaling is on the order of the number of cellphones that opt into the service, which may eventually include all of them.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 7:47 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis-06.txt
> 
> > On 17 Aug 2026, at 15:37, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Christopher, a cellphone that connects 0 other nodes is still regarded as a MANET (border) router and a singleton MANET unto itself. The
> point about MANET access control therefore becomes irrelevant.
> 
> If you choose to consider that degenerate case as a MANET, sure, there’ no access control in that case. Which says nothing about the general
> case.
> 
> > All cellphones are MANET (border) routers making the mobile Internet a "MANET-of-MANETs". Scaling is on the order of the number of
> cellphones that opt into the service, which may eventually include all of them.
> 
> Relying on preregistration and real time access to a database (or equivalent) of those possible participants. Not the case usually considered as
> a MANET.
> 
> > Thank you - Fred
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 10:40 AM
> >> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: [email protected]
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis-06.txt
> >>
> >> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (Phone has turned my following comments into as if a quote. Sorry about that.)
> >>
> >>> Of course they are connected. I’ve explained why, you’re just asserting that they aren’t. It’s all about access - who is allowed and how to
> >> implement that. And that affects the scale of the problem. There might be a few networks that allow free for all, relying on limited numbers
> in
> >> the geographical vicinity. But for the sorts of MANETs my former employer would have been interested in, that would not be the case.
> >>>
> >>> But as I said last time before planning to leave this, I leave it to the WG to have its view on this.
> >>>
> >>>> On 15 Aug 2026, at 16:26, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> 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]