Re: [Anima] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sun, 16 August 2020 04:19 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1531D3A0BFE; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUheNZfPPTVx; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2FC3A0BFD; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 07G4IZ9i026220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 16 Aug 2020 00:18:37 -0400
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:18:35 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "anima-chairs@ietf.org" <anima-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <20200816041835.GU92412@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <159478218035.5567.5331512017107084574@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200728153739.GI1772@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <96a6eb7f4f2c4cd0907a0f2a19900fe6@cert.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <96a6eb7f4f2c4cd0907a0f2a19900fe6@cert.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/PviW_bndYBzLYaxRJWEDMt6dG_U>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 04:19:09 -0000

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 01:22:22AM +0000, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> > 
> > > ** Section 6.11.1.1.2.  A mechanism for failed ACP detected using a
> > > secure channel protocol is noted for IPSec (with IKEv2 Dead Peer
> > > Detection).  What is the equivalent for DTLS?
> > 
> > Good question. If you know someone who could suggest an equivalent, please
> > bring her in. Given how this is a performance optimization, i don't think we
> > need to bother too much. I hope we can learn from
> > implementation/deployment experience (i only hve that for IPsec) and then
> > write update text later with such refinements.
> 
> Sorry, I too don't have citable reference.  Let's leave it as is.

DTLS heartbeats (RFC 6520) would probably be the closest thing to IKE dead
peer detection, but it's not a perfect match.
(Also, openssl removed all support for heartbeats recently-ish, even for
DTLS; I guess heartbleed left too many painful memories.)

-Ben