Hello folks,
I haven't read all of the emails -- that's what I am working on now.
But if the next hop is sending an RERR message, and the next hop is
doing something wrong, I think it is O.K. to invalidate the route.
The danger would be that a malicious neighbor might impersonate the next
hop. If that were detected (by verifying authentication), then no
action should be taken (i.e., the route should not be invalidated).
O.K. I will catch up on emails more now.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 2/23/2016 4:53 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
Hi Stan again,
Am 19.02.2016 um 15:35 schrieb Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>>:
Hi there!
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Lotte Steenbrink<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>wrote:
Hi Vicky, hi all,
<snip>
* ”However, since the sender of the RERR
message with erroneous information MAY be presumed to be either
malicious or broken, it is better that such routes not be used
anyway.”
To be honest, I don't really get what this sentence is trying
to say.
I think it's a (pretty formal) way of saying "Since the guy sent you crap, assume he's either busted, or he's trying to subvert the network, so don't use the route." ;-)
Yeah, but how do we determine that he's sending us crap?
OK - This is the *perfect* example of a discussion we should probably be having onmanet@xxxxxxxx <mailto:manet@xxxxxxxx>. What I'd like to see is to take the text that Lotte has already formatted, plus the text she proposes for clearing up encryption, *and posting*, along with a short description of what we've done.
My discussion with Justin last night revealed a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenario - with DLEP (and I suspect with AODVv2 as well), there's something of a "I'm not going to review the document, because there's an error in the document". That is, I couldn't get reviews & gather information on the DLEP Security Considerations section, because there was an issue with the DLEP Security Considerations...
Somebody has to "break the cycle" - so let us do it! We can post, along with an email synopsis of this very thread, basically saying "OK gang, here's or current best take - help us make it better."
Regards,
Stan
[snip]
