Subject: RE: [manet] one way hash in SAODV

From: Ranga Ramanujan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:08:11 -0600

Manel Guerrero wrote:
> BUT, in my opinion it makes no sense to try protect the routing layer
> because if I want to do a DoS, I'll do it at physical or link layer
> (where it is much more easy and routing protocol independent).
> So let's do not waste resources to try to partialy protect something
> that the bad boys are gonna attack from another layer.

> There are some manet protocols that claim that they protect against
> DoS (partialy or totaly). IMHO, they are just protecting _some_ of the
> windows of the third flour, letting any enemy get in through
> the main door that is in the basement. (sorry for the lousy metafora) ;)

I would not be as dismissive of proposed approaches for network layer
DoS defenses. They are meant to complement lower layer DoS defenses
(e.g., AJ techniques in military systems). Some of the network layer techniques
that I am aware of are designed to protect the network against DoS attacks
launched from compromised or subverted nodes in the network. In such 
environments, network layer protection may be the most effective one.

Ranga   

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Manel Guerrero Zapata <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 10:49:05 +0200

SAODV was never design for military scenarios, and it should never
be used in those scenarios. That's why it does not take into
account problems like compromissed nodes and DoS.

So the people whose target are military aplications
(which actualy seem to be a huge portion of this mailing list ;) )
should be better looking for something else that SAODV.

In the same way, some manet protocols designed for military
aplications will not be feasible (or adecuate) for most of civil purposes.
(I'm not revealing any secret here).

BR/Manel