On 6/5/13, Thomas Meier <nsclick@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > I want to forward AODV messages over a tunnel (don't worry, it's not for a > wormhole attack). its ok, but if it was my AODV network I will be worried. Tunneling is not understood only if I know what network are you tunneling through!! > In the RFC3561 I can't find information about how to deal with the packet at > the tunnel endpoint. IMHO, normal ways of packet tunnel > Should I increment the hopcount of a RREQ by one or by > the number of hops the tunnel has? RREQ is not a packet, your question was on packets, that increment of RREQ is done by AODV node received. So I think only once, because one tunnel and between two aodv-nodes only. > Furthermore I'm wondering about which > address to use for the previous node at the tunnel endpoint. Should this be > the entrance of the tunnel or the "real" previous node? nothing is real when you are tunneling, so use the node address of tunnel start. Overall I think the routing performance will not be good only if the network elements of the tunnel is not mobile. > If the tunnel entrance is used as previous node and the hopcount is only > incremented by one, the tunnel would be prefered compared to a connection > without a tunnel (like in wormhole attacks). Not correct, you don't say your reason, so I don't know how to respond. > Is there some information on how to deal with a tunnel? > In MANET documents I don't think there is importance of using tunneling, I think it is not prefered. If used it will be an attack so I am worried about what are you doing :-) AB