Subject: Re: RE: [manet] MAC layer

From: "Ioannis C. Avramopoulos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:21:58 -0500

Please see my question below.

> Now to the security questions.
> - at the Phy sublare the vulnerabilities include Low Probability of
> Intercept/Detection and jam resistance.  

Any node in the network can jam the transmissions of any other node
within transmission range trivially. So in what way is jam resistance 
properly considered? This attack is possible even by outsiders as the
spreading code is made public.

> In commercial 802.11 jam
> resistance was properly considered; LPI/LPD was not.  The single 
> directsequence spread spectrum code addresses jamming, but any 
> netstumbler can
> find the correct PN code and intercept.  Addition of more spreading
> codes would complicate the LPI/LPD problem (and probably complicate
> system configuration as well).  

The design would be more complex but the benefits, including performance
and security, would be great I think. From the discussion I haven't heard
any compelling reason not to do it.

Yannis

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

---

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:06:53 -0500

While I think this is interesting (and many in the forum have the technical
background to discuss it) this is getting a little out of scope for
this WG's charter.  We are not chartered to design lower layers (the 
IEEE forum and others can be approached with arguments). 

I think everyone mostly agrees there can be better lower layers for 
wireless developed (they are also likely application specific). Some may even
include subnet routing.

Let's concentrate on the IP technology issues for better dynamic wireless routing. 
Heterogeneous interface considerations are fair game.

If there's a specific lower layer with interfacing/behavior/IP 
interaction issues that's also fair game, because we can discuss how the
routing layer should interface and perhaps behave over top of this
interface layer.

-Joe