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)

Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> Thu, 28 April 2016 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
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 053C112D538 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thomasclausen.org
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 9ej-hkOgYgEB for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FAC012B004 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1458240719; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thomasclausen.org; s=1.tigertech; t=1461870773; bh=Sp+IRlCRj7RIsi9cmXl+YtjHyMy7/CPmESuPI3lYYOQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=m19dCebUPkjKQpESIrSuHJwR61jaMzceG4SfiELW/npwaU2dhgC5UiQ4yhf5lpTYr iWVErBBSfMzctiYPUcsqLATx3dJYIDCQhq+79mX/rB/NvOCJXjbjhsvmFtZVsmoGns 1Nkr0JjIwmMdfGCrkalB7emSOSExJ+h4quVlgD+I=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.147.246] (mtg91-1-82-227-24-173.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.24.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FD8E240140; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13F51a)
In-Reply-To: <CAGnRvurYCUteVq=wgibuHW4ncT811Gd-PfEpeF+S8U9bBj+hfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 21:12:50 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <745A7E07-DAA3-43E0-8AA5-675B3BE303F3@thomasclausen.org>
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> <CA+-pDCcmDsxVK796T=aOc7kM0uLgCfiE2GF+EkCj+BVo25pMUw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnRvurYCUteVq=wgibuHW4ncT811Gd-PfEpeF+S8U9bBj+hfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MEiah1TGMuIQK63m9UkxDikpzYg>
Cc: Christopher Dearlove <chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>, Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list <manet@ietf.org>, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@gmail.com>, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
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 19:12:56 -0000


> On 28 Apr 2016, at 19:40, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Using IPv6 linklocal unicast would work fine because you always have a
> route for the network.
> 
> Installing IPv4 linklocal addresses would give the same for IPv4.
> 

Not to forget:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-sunset4-v4historic-00

So assuming what works with v6 seems the way to go.

Thomas

> Henning Rogge
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email