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

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

Thank you - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 10:40 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 3:19 PM
> >>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <Fred.L.Templin=[e-mail]>
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 7:22 AM
> >>>>> To: Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
> >>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>>> Subject: [manet] Re: draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis-06.txt
> >>>>> Hi Christopher,
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 4:19 PM
> >>>>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis-06.txt
> >>>>>>>> On 13 Aug 2026, at 22:55, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 12:39 PM
> >>>>>>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>>>>>> 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 -- [e-mail]
> >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]