Re: [manet] What was the Chameleon disaster?

Juliusz Chroboczek <> Sun, 15 October 2023 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D779C14CE3B for <>; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 C3qbiwEV2-HC for <>; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A842BC14F75F for <>; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 39FJsQRA019685; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:54:26 +0200
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8522C4367F; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:54:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:mime-version :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:subject:subject:from:from :message-id:date:date:received:received; s=dkim-irif; t= 1697399663; x=1698263664; bh=KFCRsulXz6T9q2sX+/pLh6jpK7GS6MMzHOY 0paIhR14=; b=B+McO1NNSN/FAVqySeUR/iv9R1//lBF/WBsxKWpeG665s9TlVNe sGXc30lVYQjAB2pHcpcmg8fzCetKByZFoAN+XMvauQqBu0+2qRR8mi7+Ychx3oYT 521kpIDpzcPnsXNDMdE4K0chliF/+272J3dVXcosY1DEGUVObDSl32miUXeh4BHn CWs8Vtk1vOZnSAju/1MHdLKNYO6PIp67UxMR/rv3hi7va6JSb1W67H4Uu/7+gEPL YenlgGlqNb06ay+Xip4J0cL6yJqL0+THKjb2nZwdq3VWodbwFlpuEbs5/NSBTGN8 +czcicrlTE6GIiKWaVvG8IVkaejadGmEakQ==
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id HgawQVg0N36S; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:54:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: jch) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9D664367D; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:54:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:54:22 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <>
To: Christopher Dearlove <>
Cc: Henning Rogge <>,,
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/29.1 Mule/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 ( []); Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:54:26 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 652C4372.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 652C4372.000 from<>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 652C4372.000 on : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
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 19:54:37 -0000

>>> 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?

> Answering that question would be step one.


> 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.

At that point, they announce a host route to self, and point default at
a neighbour that announces a default route.

> Or maybe they are prepared to accept such a connection.

In this case, you need a protocol extension that requests a node to
announce a route to self.  It should not be too onerous to define, but I'd
like to convince myself there's an actual need.

A use case for a true hybrid protocol would be somewhat more difficult to
construct, it would probably involve a node that doesn't need continuous
connectivity but at the same time can occasionally serve for transit.

We, at Babel Towers, are of course always interested to hear about novel
use-cases for routing protocols.

-- Juliusz