On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:59 , Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
The remaining danger is that a packet with a mid-span-generated
checksum has been corrupted inside the 6lowpan to go to a different
node; the checksum generated at the 6lowpan egress will be based on
that corrupted information, so cannot detect that. So a node that
does not know about (or expect) MICs is going to process the
corrupted
packet. I think this is a danger we can live with, given how weak
the
UDP checksum is in the first place.
[Pascal]
Back to above, the sender should know that the receiver checks the
MIC.
In any case I agree with you.
It can't know anything about the receiver if the packet is corrupted
and as a result misrouted to a total stranger.
But again, this is a danger we probably can live with -- receivers who
care should probably have some app level checking anyway.
[Pascal] This is good text. It's not a 100 percent replacemeny of my
proposal though.
What's missing?
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
