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

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

> On 17 Aug 2026, at 15:37, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> 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 <[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]
>