Subject: Re: [manet] promiscious mode in MANET

From: yingpei zeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:40:04 +0800 (CST)

Hi,
   I think let the node work in promiscious mode, strictly speaking,may impose some overload on the CPU. for you must copy the data from the network interface to the system buffer and analysis it( for detection the misbehaviors). 
 
  Regards

[email-masked] wrote:
Hi all,

I'm currently reading some papers about mibehaviors detection in MANET. The
basic technique used is that each node enters in promiscious mode and monitors
its neighbors.

I'm wondering... What are the consequences on performance and routing if all the
nodes in a MANET are in promiscious mode?

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

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
150万曲MP3疯狂搜，带您闯入音乐殿堂
美女明星应有尽有，搜遍美图、艳图和酷图
1G就是1000兆，雅虎电邮自助扩容！

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:17:11 +0200

Hello all,

I would be greatly interested if someone could send me pointers to studies on
the CPU overload caused by promiscuous mode listening.

Thx

Claudio

Quoting yingpei zeng <[email-masked]>:

> Hi,
>    I think let the node work in promiscious mode, strictly speaking,may
> impose some overload on the CPU. for you must copy the data from the network
> interface to the system buffer and analysis it( for detection the
> misbehaviors). 
>  
>   Regards
> 
> 150ÍòÇúMP3·è¿ñËÑ£¬´øÄú´³ÈëÒôÀÖµîÌÃ
> ÃÀÅ®Ã÷ÐÇÓ¦ÓÐ¾¡ÓÐ£¬ËÑ±éÃÀÍ¼¡¢ÑÞÍ¼ºÍ¿áÍ¼
> 1G¾ÍÊÇ1000Õ×£¬ÑÅ»¢µçÓÊ×ÔÖúÀ©ÈÝ£¡

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Institut Eurecom Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr

---

From: Pietro Michiardi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:55:40 +0200

Dear all,
as a complement on the promiscuous mode discussion I would like to ask 
you the following.

Does anyone know any alternative technique to promiscuous listinening 
(watchdog technique by Marti et al) used to infer behavior (e.g. in 
terms of packet forwarding) of neighboring nodes?

In the literature (sorry no pointers in this mail) I have found these 
alternative techniques:

- probe packets: basically probes are sent on an end-to-end basis, 
source waits for ACK msg from the destination. Issue of this technique: 
probes must be undistinguishable from ordinary packets => use of 
cryptography, ACK from destination might be lost, dropped, forged (if no 
authentication infrastructure is available)

- 2-hop ACKs, cross-layer ACKs (MAC or TCP): basically nodes wait for 
ACK msgs to understand if the function that is beeing monitored (e.g. 
packet forwarding) has been correctly executed. Drawback of this 
technique: ACKs might be lost, forged, dropped...

Is there anything else out there?

Besides, talking about promiscuous mode, my feeling is that the only 
charge on the CPU is due to the processing that need to be done on the 
overheared packets. Indeed, I guess that nodes that are *not* in 
promiscuous mode need to parse MAC headers to make sure that the 
received packet MAC_DEST address corresponds to their own MAC address. 
In promiscuous mode, this parsing phase is not performed, since all 
packets are passed to upper layers for processing. Thus, CPU cost only 
depends on what the nodes do with overheared packets.
Does it make sense?

Thanks for your feedback!

Pietro