IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items)

Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com> Thu, 28 April 2016 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bebemaster@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507C412D1DE for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22ScTDsYMPrR for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 994CF12D1DC for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id g133so115024082ywb.2 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=RdyMPmS8tucDD5CgmfDVDEjSyf3aLdBpr4VbuF7ANRA=; b=vvHRylAN621OiKa83o+5pbmdBp29HycCd6W4C5bfB/7JjjtPrvlV8pwUO7R/r6WwrS dizFvYrotw8NNpKj0y5DEodohddtwQXiAurHvIW1ZrCtA3EdRuwOxAT8ExUlioYMyugw qNjK6Bh0bc6EGa3PcMUienqNoKwpsHjedJDIGTayhZTcDcxJ1dWwXMjknHt/3INUq9OP JtGMA+vQqyMx8yTGzSUFDC2E61q5ht9YOH2/fPW/8i3+qO6H4o/Y+n/w9QPfUXX+0ZES TTZzje0nYmDyB/U28MP1c5qwYBrKnuFFEKw3lXMeaJysrxKmAo0BKj3W6tnbLljH1735 jBAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=RdyMPmS8tucDD5CgmfDVDEjSyf3aLdBpr4VbuF7ANRA=; b=b7i5d9NehAT8geysXjnADzuynNJNNXhfnJV1AYZZvkeM36R9wr7xdJi6bnCw3Q6Tu9 lzTyHQcyabzK2rXsiffGXd0P99JPtJm2NHs0TudrsCWBpRyyKJIGBhHGqGuj1ui6AI40 OPQbVYc27geEY4lUqbG4qJiz92MGAGtO2Q+iFTP4Vpne5WJCA7HpRbYeZ2kkuPCmQNGV bgna84jun+MP4OhmMkLf1QVNNVl8YTN61eUGrgWUl+8lzp3zkts2nwR08gsnH9mpuyXQ 6xs+pK+C0N5K5rDELJyNGEQxP9989aNQIYyuu+Ar90czo91LUcitoTd5dTjKZ7g1k1mE azuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWVUoGv1O5ltWdLKFf90erYdRSmB2rLFsm3EDqwIE5RkmFhl3xLrIyo5A9JmAUls9xzR+tWfforX7N7/w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.176.1.108 with SMTP id 99mr8215449uak.54.1461863324754; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.62.67 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAePS4B-TmVDvTicDTd03S5R2tuPDpSM1dj0_NOgm4aGhp-27g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237E267@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <1F5AB0F1-0B92-4A66-A08F-A2BF8B414D9F@thomasclausen.org> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237E2C8@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <5EE270D1-30EF-42A9-BF11-7F4267967AC0@fu-berlin.de> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237E324@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <3F51EFE1-7D89-49E9-8B1B-87C02D7A705D@thomasclausen.org> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9237E356@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <0E2F32E3-A198-48BA-A712-F9F59F8BBAA0@thomasclausen.org> <CAAePS4D3A3g7NbZ4jND04xhJ2Q+gbGP-7sXZ4p4eC55=ejiWLw@mail.gmail.com> <B0317B9B-09AA-48A5-90C2-2A8DA51C8281@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> <CAAePS4DCHy6R_Ht7KF3MoeZ7ML+BawnobC92VLQZyS5FaA7vdQ@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923B12C9@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAN1bDFwyTFatXOkuY+N2czFPqVmoygRjSCRG2bubS=sBhLqE7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAAePS4Botm8kfQXuJczHC_rYfjtisDrTk5Vdb5m2LafP2qkTTg@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923B1556@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <84C7FCA8-B122-4534-ACB7-0C799F14A569@thomasclausen.org> <CA+-pDCdy=9Bea4nwQ5k8hqAPTJ04RgvdeDqHaj6MXeRnFj-3dg@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D923B15E3@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAAePS4APf3PsKdbzOZv1kd9oAP_3AUDPxoM9oor=NkjBGExFbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN1bDFzv0R9UzykYwm-9JK7OVYYHeNzxXYNWRsx87T7ODNmVDw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+-pDCf7zvhagsH--OrX7ASHVi994Oq9P-Kj-udg0047joFRSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAePS4B81Ep3Gg6bROceqTHAj0LhKDFAsAUWPuF=3hLoVMu5cQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN1bDFzAWQiF=fM5+3Xz=D130mq8teY3E_UEGoXUSTcV6QN2eg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAePS4B-TmVDvTicDTd03S5R2tuPDpSM1dj0_NOgm4aGhp-27g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:08:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+-pDCcmDsxVK796T=aOc7kM0uLgCfiE2GF+EkCj+BVo25pMUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>
To: Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d0cd42ea9c005318e943f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/61QdR7nq3NjvcXzzukZLuo6kDGU>
Cc: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, Christopher Dearlove <chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] Message integrity and message mutability (was RE: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:08:50 -0000

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Jiazi,
>
> Thanks for your response. So you think we could change back to sending
> RREP by unicast (letting an implementation handle whether this requires a
> route to the neighbor to be installed temporarily)? We would have to also
> send a separate message to request an acknowledgement, but this could also
> be unicast and could therefore potentially be sent in the same RFC5444
> packet.
>
> Anyone have any objections?
>

I don't think it's a good idea to "temporarily" add a route that is not
known to be bi-directional yet.  The timing of correctly adding and
removing the route with different mediums and restricting the route to only
that one packet doesn't seem like a workable solution.    Sending it
unicast with a raw type socket or pcap out of a known interface sure.  IMO
a route shouldn't be added until the link is confirmed bi-directional.

Justin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email