IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> Wed, 23 March 2016 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.dearlove@baesystems.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 C815412DB4D for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 05:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.93
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 H-G-qLO3n0ki for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 05:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ukmta1.baesystems.com (ukmta1.baesystems.com [20.133.0.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA4C412D718 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 05:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,382,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="54395939"
Received: from unknown (HELO baemasmds016.greenlnk.net) ([10.15.207.101]) by ukmta1.baesystems.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2016 10:35:46 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,382,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="111271095"
Received: from glkxh0004v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.35]) by baemasmds016.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2016 10:35:46 +0000
Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.5.79]) by GLKXH0004V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:35:46 +0000
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>, Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
Thread-Topic: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 review - a couple of big ticket Items
Thread-Index: AQHRhHiiU+1aHmMw/kSRrabi+iXC459m1SlQ
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:35:45 +0000
Message-ID: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D92381821@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
References: <8C311D85-5C5A-4155-9705-6B09D0AA588B@thomasclausen.org> <CA+-pDCds+kZy2LUz_A0c3_sJKF03NFroh5oXXgQP0fw=aGRNxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-pDCds+kZy2LUz_A0c3_sJKF03NFroh5oXXgQP0fw=aGRNxg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/huVHBKkr-FglnxMF_7BxI1u8_DQ>
Cc: Mobile Ad Hoc Networks mailing list <manet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] 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: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:54:25 -0000

JWD: I partly disagree that it can't be used for this purpose.  RFC5444 specifies:
      <msg-hop-limit> is omitted if the mhashoplimit flag is cleared
      '0'); otherwise, is an 8-bit unsigned integer field that can
      contain the maximum number of hops that the message should be
      further transmitted.

which in retrospect was a mistake as 5444 was meant to be a format and not a protocol specification as we mentioned many times. No other  protocol message is going to forward these messages as AODVv2 "owns" the message type so I don't see an issue with bending the terms in 5444 to allow this forwarding of "information"

CMD> I think this comes under the heading of “not prohibited but undesirable” but also that all options I can see involve something undesirable, or worse, so this may be the least undesirable.

JWD> The way multiplexers work messages can get torn apart and sent back out in a different way.  My OLSRv2 with another version will likely do just that.

CMD> Absolutely not, that is a violation of OLSRv2 rules and unacceptable, because OLSRv2 specifies forwarding messages unchanged. That completely breaks use of RFC 7182 message ICVs - which might be applied by the multiplexer. Please do not even consider this.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email