Re: [manet] What was the Chameleon disaster?

Christopher Dearlove <> Sun, 15 October 2023 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34891C14CEFA for <>; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F1lMlgOPeHC9 for <>; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E887FC14F747 for <>; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40776b20031so15814525e9.0 for <>; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1697396941; x=1698001741;; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=u588969zSrNA1xX60lQNV8TXdGuuM79Xfn+DgaVK2+w=; b=FeRfjtYWpNOSAKS58hoNLSPFcT9OlVfZ9cZpRtP92QJihaaRkNwtT7ht/IOIZG29Ea PM66gZema6syL+WR03omLdZX/fTiniw5x8umT30iN20KtvfxrvR7uc7WgnNIvSzOAZSo zews/saQjQf2yrTZsU5YwFjm1Rr/FWCOK1zQxUvmLIGPH/0iFTs36HQlBoxIz1qnxTgH vHFpOKhqxQ9zslNvboIdmdfuHPH0+F2xeIujqYX5s23b3TOzEvatFViX2K4YHuI07fAE T0lAjShZxEuWgvgd/QE8XALcF+IjsmhWR8d7JbqF1HSzRRMIDHHMY1q+fsp85iZG6uiC pC6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1697396941; x=1698001741; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=u588969zSrNA1xX60lQNV8TXdGuuM79Xfn+DgaVK2+w=; b=SlOlf5bZQdSavfhZKgiTud2FrZotU8As6+xqow/ANi1i7OATD4MJWIu+rsMkqQh9uD z1JEx/3sOKwQrFC/mdUONacS2CACmzkYc2P+jO7Ndc5BbLyfkbcjxeIXtHpVzG3hAezS 3Guxcv87jYikbNjv8R+40YwgKSDUmVscdwor6UAEylkoLCI9AAeEw8mOuZNW/Rd2FHfE ZB9v1q+3pVj5anJAcedloXRIzrm+LwsC74f+Wi+HsU8q3IX0R+l2uWF05M9hBU4aD4si kdwjQFtiYaUVfZYGsYDBENNHTOWkzohdHCQ00aJDIAayCtqtHElkHaDJUsPlGZi9I52L mQTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzQhQqmogATrSX+LdK0TD5R37iWQIZhpcbq9K73A7owRcvbt3By 1NRmhHC6XLTWFM7kQGk3Mco=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFzuvusQNfYcQNN0T6l7EsrJHliS5BCVS1iiyKVSwBakOw+0n+UwW9ajnciCkUdu34Kroj3kA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2a4e:b0:404:732b:674f with SMTP id x14-20020a05600c2a4e00b00404732b674fmr28422390wme.34.1697396940834; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 14-20020a05600c22ce00b0040773c69fc0sm5162821wmg.11.2023. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Christopher Dearlove <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 20:08:48 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: Henning Rogge <>,,
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20B101)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] What was the Chameleon disaster?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 19:09:07 -0000

Answering that question would be step one. It’s possible to hypothesise cases, but whether anyone really has them, who knows?

In that hypothetical spirit, let’s suppose most users are happy with a proactive protocol. But there are a few who, due to need for covertness, or limited battery life or whatever don’t want to join in. But occasionally they might have a need to communicate. So are prepared to reactively establish a connection. Or maybe they are prepared to accept such a connection. But the proactive net is out there and running, so why not take advantage of it when setting up that reactive route? And that’s a hybrid protocol.

But as I said, is there anyone who actually has that requirement?

> On 15 Oct 2023, at 18:57, Juliusz Chroboczek <> wrote:
>> which usually does, and should, mean real use cases
> Ok, I'll bite.
> What are the use cases for a hybrid protocol that are not satisfactorily
> met by existing protocols?
> -- Juliusz