Subject: Re: [manet] promiscious mode in MANET

From: yingpei zeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:45:03 +0800 (CST)

Hi Pietro Michiardi
 
    this paper  mention dealing with the single black hole(not forward packet).
Hongmei Deng, Wei Li, and Dharma P. Agrawal, “Routing Security in Wireless Ad Hoc Network,” IEEE Communications Magzine, vol. 40, no. 10, October 2002.
 
    It use some addition packets. But as you said, it's easy to be droped,forged. There are also some intrusion detection to do this work . and some Trust/Reputation system.
 
    Besides. I think  parsing the MAC headers  is the task of the NIC(in network card), not the CPU. on the other side, the promiscuous mode usually receive more packets than normal node, the packets is placed in the Kernal Space by the network card drive, so if the analysis program is in User Space, a system call must be invoked to copy the data from Kernal Space to User Space.so will need some CPU resource.
 
YingPei zeng

Pietro Michiardi <[email-masked]> wrote:
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

_______________________________________________
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