[manet] Re: draft manet inet gap

Jim,

Thanks for the clarifications. The -07 draft includes “Appendix A: MANET Architectural Layering” which discusses the L2/L3-MANET distinctions and is cited throughout the rest of the document as necessary. For further discussion on L2/L3-MANET, see the AERO/OMNI proposal which carries the Catenet architecture forward into the modern era:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-aero-omni-amen/

Thank you - Fred

From: Stevens, Jim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 3:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
Subject: [draft manet inet gap

Fred,

I prefer that the MANET working group mention both L2/L3 MANET routing because we lost a MANET R&D program 20 or so years ago when we proposed L2 routing and the customer feedback quoted from the MANET working group to say that all MANET routing had to be IP layer 3 based.

But nothing that I wrote about Layer 2 and Layer 3 routing and the subtle differences between them are Collins Intellectual Property (IP).  Instead, that is general knowledge and can be found in multiple public papers stretching back to the start of the Catenet/Internet with Packet Radio Layer 2 MANET routing below Layer 3 IP routing.

Other examples include many LoRaWAN routing protocols that work at LoRaWAN MAC layer with its smaller addresses and unlimited distribution MIL-STD-188-220 that does L2 routing (what 188-220 calls IntraNet routing).

I believe that most, if not all, Collins protocols that are in standards, like STANAG 4691 Mobile Ad hoc Relay Line of sight Networking (MARLIN), have been provided royalty free (but I obviously don’t know about all Collins protocols in all standards).

That doesn’t mean that Collins don’t reserve the right to propose Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing in the future, but I never contribute Collins IP for a standard without disclosing that it was Collins IP or fail to mention as a participant – because that is just “best practices” for being in standard bodies  (see RFC 8179).  And to date, everything that I have contributed and that has gone into standards has been royalty free.

Regards,
Jim



Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 17:45:53 +0000

From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

Subject: [manet] Re: manet Digest, Vol 257, Issue 11

To: "Stevens, Jim " <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,

               "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>



Hi Jim, I could go either way on the MANET router definition (simplest per -03 or move involved per -06) because the L2/L3 layering is discussed elsewhere in the document. But, I am curious to what extent your comments may be oriented toward intellectual property assertions of your company and/or yourself?



Thank you - Fred



From: Stevens, Jim <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 10:29 AM

To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] [manet] Re: manet Digest, Vol 257, Issue 11



EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.





Hi AB



Yes, I prefer the definition of MANET router mentioned in the draft -06  Section 2. Terminology over that of draft -03.



This is because people often make assumptions about MANET routers based upon layer 3 and ignore issues that arise from layer 2 where the MANET router is highly intertwined with the channel access protocol.  And yes, people have extended DLEP to try to solve these problems, but I have still seen layer 3 DLEP networking designs that are inefficient in operation because of being divorced from layer 2 channel access or else they recreate layer 2 functions in layer 3.



As an example, look at the email thread about MANET definition of a neighbor and the discussion that followed with many responders suggesting to just update routing tables faster to determine good neighbors

https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_manet_P3f60tam6W9aCf-2Dg5xiU7zyHw3o_&d=DwIGaQ&c=MASr1KIcYm9UGIT-jfIzwQg1YBeAkaJoBtxV_4o83uQ&r=Tw2ihBR45ca_q8fRdmKNDvtpW3UDjf_9LWW2Uw6NAyU&m=ebHO3HJb3Z_i-Lk2eJgD7W0RY9GEqaY7998kFTQRqMmDUWQt7pt6nkEE0RuHQuhc&s=6srQWA7obftrFAJb41lcoxnYr0wWBajerX5ToMCeXPY&e=



I have successfully designed and implemented layer 2 and layer 3 routers with over ten different fielded layer 2 or layer 3 MANET networking waveforms and found subtle differences in the design of the routing protocols:



  *   Layer 2 routers have to worry more how to determine if a node is a neighbor or not and what type of neighbor:  good neighbor, bad neighbor, interfering neighbor, not a neighbor, etc; and also can make better physical and channel access (layer 1 & 2) control decisions

  *   Layer 3 routers can often assume a node is either a neighbor or not a neighbor (easier to do with point to point RF links or above a Layer 2 MANET versus broadcast RF links without a layer 2 MANET); and also worry about interoperating with IP networking



Note that I use the term “waveform” as defined in DODI 4630.09, https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.esd.whs.mil_Portals_54_Documents_DD_issuances_dodi_463009p.pdf&d=DwIGaQ&c=MASr1KIcYm9UGIT-jfIzwQg1YBeAkaJoBtxV_4o83uQ&r=Tw2ihBR45ca_q8fRdmKNDvtpW3UDjf_9LWW2Uw6NAyU&m=ebHO3HJb3Z_i-Lk2eJgD7W0RY9GEqaY7998kFTQRqMmDUWQt7pt6nkEE0RuHQuhc&s=usZsp4S7QQs0eXQmcbkkO9IwonJeMtByPHnvxV1XDes&e= page 22<https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.esd.whs.mil_Portals_54_Documents_DD_issuances_dodi_463009p.pdf-2520page-252022&d=DwIGaQ&c=MASr1KIcYm9UGIT-jfIzwQg1YBeAkaJoBtxV_4o83uQ&r=Tw2ihBR45ca_q8fRdmKNDvtpW3UDjf_9LWW2Uw6NAyU&m=ebHO3HJb3Z_i-Lk2eJgD7W0RY9GEqaY7998kFTQRqMmDUWQt7pt6nkEE0RuHQuhc&s=66DWHN-XcSDCLkEkk_Bn84jeyCsQbxBaD7CePvM0H8I&e=>:

“An electromagnetic signal-in-space, typically defined by Open Systems Interconnection model layers 1 through 3, along with the controls and processes for a desired function or application. These processes do not include the message content.”



Best regards,

Jim







Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:36:37 +0200



From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>>>



Subject: [manet] Re: I support distinction draft manet inet gap



               analysi makes between L2/L3 MANETs



To: "Stevens, Jim" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>>>







Hi Jim,







do you agree with the definition of MANET router mentioned in the draft. My



comment also mentioned that the definition of 'MANET router' should make



distinction, because there are different routers in different layers.







I am still waiting for the draft author reply to my concern.







Best Regards



AB





-------------- next part --------------

A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...

Name: not available

Type: text/html

Size: 15387 bytes

Desc: not available



------------------------------



Subject: Digest Footer



_______________________________________________

manet mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>





------------------------------



End of manet Digest, Vol 257, Issue 15

**************************************

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