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

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Justin Dean <[e-mail]> 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.

Henning Rogge