Subject: [manet] Hares Technical Issue 4 - GTSM

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:52:45 -0500

Technical issues 4 - GTSM 

GTSM started with the observations:

1)  that most routing peers operated over adjacent routers,

2)  Service providers may not have strict filtering on the link,

3) GSTM is optional and can be configured on a per peer (or group)

4) Both peer routers must implement GSTM 

5) Routers support pool for different classified traffic. 

[section 2. Of RFC5082] 

To say you "MUST support GTSM" is to say you must have the function, but
operators may optionally use it. 

Question: 

1. Henning is an intelligent contributor to the list.  Why is Henning
indicating the MUST for GTSM should be a SHOULD?  How does Henning interpret
this text in RFC5082 differently than I do? 

2. Have people determine if the adjacency clause has any problems with the
node moves away?

a. If so, can you point to me to the list discussion? 

b. If not, why not for GTSM?  

3.  Some people consider that "Should" DISCARD a message that doesn't fit
GTSM allows for special cases that provide their own link checking.  Is this
Henning's concern?  Can someone provide me an example use case for this
point. 

4.  Does a heavy level of link level security in some networks cause the
operators of the MANET to consider GTSM to be a problem rather than a
solution? 

Sue

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:34:23 +0100

On 01/14/2013 06:52 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
> 1.Henning is an intelligent contributor to the list.  Why is Henning
> indicating the MUST for GTSM should be a SHOULD?  How does Henning
> interpret this text in RFC5082 differently than I do?

Because its a layer violation in the context of RFC5444.

AODVv2 defines a MESSAGE for RFC5444. You can (and often do) run 
multiple protocols on top of RFC5444 which each define its own message.

A common example for this is running RFC 6130 (NHDP) and OLSRv2 (or AODVv2).

RFC5444 combines this messages and aggregates them into packets, which 
are then sent as UDP packets on the network.

If protocols which defines messages make mandatory assumtions about the 
IP packets, you can get conflicts between them. I would suggest putting 
GTSM into AODVv2 security considerations as a proposal, so the 
IMPLEMENTOR (who controls which protocols work together on the same 
RFC5444 port) can decide if he wants GTSM or not.

Henning Rogge

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:26:01 -0500

Henning: 

Again, thank you for aiding my understanding. 

Do I understand from this message that RFC5444 should be the protocol
running GTSM?

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Henning Rogge
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:34 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Hares Technical Issue 4 - GTSM

AODVv2 defines a MESSAGE for RFC5444. You can (and often do) run multiple
protocols on top of RFC5444 which each define its own message.

RFC5444 combines this messages and aggregates them into packets, which are
then sent as UDP packets on the network.

If protocols which defines messages make mandatory assumtions about the IP
packets, you can get conflicts between them. I would suggest putting GTSM
into AODVv2 security considerations as a proposal, so the IMPLEMENTOR (who
controls which protocols work together on the same
RFC5444 port) can decide if he wants GTSM or not.

Henning Rogge

--
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für Kommunikation,
Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:36:20 +0100

> Do I understand from this message that RFC5444 should be the protocol

Yes, I think GTSM is a security consideration (and option) for RFC5444.

So AODVv2 could suggest using it for RFC5444, but I don't think its the 
place to mandate its usage.

Henning Rogge

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:59:00 -0500

Henning:

Hmm....  That's an interesting viewpoint.  Let me check with my friends in
the security directorate and the KARP texts - maybe I misunderstood how the
KARP mandates were worded. 

Draft-

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Rogge [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:36 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Hares Technical Issue 4 - GTSM

Henning Rogge

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:59 +0000

I think perhaps the correct place is actually 5498 rather than 5444. (5498 mandates - on the manet port/protocol - that which 5444 provides as a proposed usage.)

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henning Rogge
Sent: 14 January 2013 14:36
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Hares Technical Issue 4 - GTSM

Henning Rogge

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:48:22 +0100

On 01/15/2013 02:38 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> I think perhaps the correct place is actually 5498 rather than 5444.
> (5498 mandates - on the manet port/protocol - that which 5444
> provides as a proposed usage.)

That sounds good too.

An alternative would have been to mention the TTL security option in RFC 
6622.

Henning Rogge

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:50:45 -0500

Chris:

Could you verify it today?  I'm writing up some comments for KARP for
Stewart Bryant, and I'd like to include it in my email.

Thanks,

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:39 AM
To: Henning Rogge; Susan Hares
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [manet] Hares Technical Issue 4 - GTSM

I think perhaps the correct place is actually 5498 rather than 5444. (5498
mandates - on the manet port/protocol - that which 5444 provides as a
proposed usage.)

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and
Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West
Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124 [email-masked] |
http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----

Henning Rogge

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:20:27 +0000

This is not subject to confirmation in the sense of I need to verify which RFC says what, but rather a view of best presentation. My view is that this belongs as a development of 5498, which is where it is mandated what to do is, rather than 5444. (Actually, I don't think the existing split between the two is right, but that's water under the bridge.)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 17 January 2013 01:51
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); 'Henning Rogge'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Hares Technical Issue 4 - GTSM

----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

Chris:

Thanks,

Sue 

-----Original Message-----

Henning Rogge

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