[manet] Re: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

Funny thing,

we (Fraunhofer FKIE) are currently working on using DLEP to connect two
layers of a hierarchical routing system with each other... its not that
different to a situation where your (maybe multi-radio) adhoc-network uses
a radio system that internally uses IP routing for multi-hop (quite common
in military radios).

We are currently working on building a better prototype and we want to
create an IETF draft as soon as we have the necessary components tested.

Henning Rogge

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 3:06 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Christopher, I glanced through your paper which looks interesting but I
> don’t see where it anticipates bridging disjoint MANET local routing
> regions over the Internet as transit. MANET Internetworking is not an
> extension of OLSRv2, and does not extend OLSRv2 over the interdomain. MANET
> Internetworking is based on an encapsulation virtual interface termed the
> “OMNI Interface” often represented as “omni0”. So, turning back to OLSRv2
> terms you would assign an IP address to the OMNI interface and feed “omni0”
> into OLSRv2 instead of “lo”.
>
>
>
> MANET Internetworking is independent of the MANET local routing protocol
> which can be OLSRv2 or could instead be any other MANET routing protocol.
> And, the MANET routing protocol used in the source MANET domain can be
> totally different than the routing protocol used in the target MANET
> domain. This is due to the fact that the interdomain routing is based on
> BGP and not what one would consider a “traditional” MANET routing protocol.
>
>
>
> Thank you - Fred
>
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2026 3:00 PM
> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] List <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [manet] Re: [EXTERNAL] I-D Action:
> draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt
>
>
>
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>
>
>
>
> Yes. For some DLEP was a key issue. For others it diverted the group from
> where they wanted to go. Those can both be true.
>
>
>
> Internetworking ideas were part of the motivation for one the changes from
> OLSR(v1) to OLRv2. I think the first we (my employer) published on that wa
> http://interop.thomasclausen.org/Interop05/Papers/Papers/paper-01.pdf but
> the ideas were older of course. In that paper we discuss adding a hop count
> to a gateway, unlike OLSR(v1). Later of course we (OLSRv2 authors, as
> required by WG) also added a metric, when we added those to all links.
>
>
>
> There are then two things missing from OLSRv2 - two connected things. One
> is deciding on a hop count/metric at a gateway, the other is networking the
> gateways. And of course addressing. (And avoiding the chicken and egg of
> that OLSRv2 can create the network to deliver addresses, except of course
> it needs addresses to do that.)
>
>
>
> But the autoconf group had problems before you got to that point. The
> resolution was that mobile devices in a MANET are routers (hence why OLRv2
> calls them that, not nodes). Because those who wanted the MANET to be an IP
> subnet and behave like an ethernet ran into physics. (Radio connectivity is
> not transitive.) It took a long time to get to that point, and by the time
> it was reached, the energy had gone.
>
>
>
> On 17 Mar 2026, at 22:48, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris, AFAICT you and I  are two of the more senior members of this
> community who still occasionally post and show continued interest. But,
> another possible explanation for why few “old-timers” remain is that the
> emphasis of the working group has shifted several times over the years.
> First, it was about efficient routing protocols, and the designers of those
> protocols attended to their work then moved on to other things. Then, the
> wg became more focused on DLEP and a different cast of contributors again
> came and went. Then, the merger with Babel happened and it surprises me
> that we don’t hear more about Babel here.
>
>
>
> But, this subject of MANET Internetworking got started around Y2K and has
> been an unspoken big-picture consideration ever since.  We have now reached
> a point where we can articulate it as we do in our drafts and as we did in
> our presentation yesterday. The subject now having been articulated, my
> hope is that it may breathe some new life into the wg in the form of more
> discussion as we seem to be beginning to see.
>
>
>
> About Multilink Local Addresses (MLAs), the IETF autoconf working group
> was originally looking to define a “MANET Local Address” but ran into a
> crossroads where consensus couldn’t be reached. They published RFC5889
> stating: “For IPv6, these addresses may be global [RFC3587], Unique-Local
> [RFC4193] or Link-Local [RFC4291]” and then further explained why Link
> -Local Addresses (LLAs) are of limited use saying: “Therefore,
> autoconfiguration solutions should be encouraged to primarily focus on
> configuring IP addresses that are not IPv6 link-local”.
>
>
>
> The MLA draft addresses the need for a new IPv6 address type that is
> something less than global scope but something more than link-local scope.
> Whenever you have an IPv6 address type, you need to tell what interface the
> address is assigned to per RFC4291. The MLA draft explains that the MLA is
> assigned to the OMNI interface, and our MANET Internetworking presentation
> explains why that is important.
>
>
>
> Thank you - Fred
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:44 AM
> *To:* Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] List
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [manet] I-D Action:
> draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt
>
>
>
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>
>
>
>
> Old participants have moved on. If they were really interested they’d make
> occasional appearances (such as I do). If they are lurking, and see a
> reason to chip in, great. But you can’t rely on anything from them - and
> most especially you can’t require anything from them. People are here
> either because they are interested, and interests move on (often when they
> get their PhD) or it’s their job, and employers move on too (mine did).
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Mar 2026, at 09:26, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Fred,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your presentation in the 125 meeting, I am interested in this
> draft, and did not complete my reply comment on this draft, but I think
> this draft is facing an important issue that the old participants in this
> WG did not write drafts on, and if I am wrong please refer me with some old
> drafts.
>
>
>
> I think it is important that we get feedback from old participants if they
> discussed these issues or not.
>
>
>
> thanking you,
>
>
>
> AB
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 7:26 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, here is a draft that proposes a new IPv6 address type for use in Ad
> Hoc Networks. The Multilink-Local Address (MLA) has a scope greater than
> link-local (LLA) but lesser than other Globally Unique (GUA) address types.
> IPv6 packets with MLA source and/or destination addresses may be routable
> within a limited domain (such as a virtual overlay) but may not be globally
> routable to other networks. MLAs are guaranteed globally unique so that no
> conflicts should arise when multiple nodes inject their MLAs into a common
> MANET routing region. MLAs use the same specification as for the RFC9374
> HHIT/DET construct. Please review and comment on the list.
>
> Fred Templin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 8:41 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt
>
> Internet-Draft draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt is now available.
>
>    Title:   IPv6 Addresses for Ad Hoc Networks
>    Author:  Fred L. Templin
>    Name:    draft-templin-6man-mla-32.txt
>    Pages:   12
>    Dates:   2026-02-16
>
> Abstract:
>
>    Ad Hoc networks present an IPv6 addressing challenge due to the
>    undetermined neighborhood properties of their interfaces.  IPv6 nodes
>    must assign locally-unique and topology-independent IPv6 addresses
>    when topology-oriented IPv6 address delegation services are either
>    absent or only intermittently available.  This document introduces a
>    new IPv6 address type (termed the "Multilink Local Address (MLA)")
>    that nodes can autonomously assign to interfaces to support Ad Hoc
>    network operations.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-mla/
>
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-6man-mla-32
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-templin-6man-mla-32
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>