[Hipsec] BEET discussions

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Tue, 25 November 2008 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <hipsec-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: hip-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-hip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615133A6A78; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:27:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55703A6961 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:27:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZxHyf1p+KyEp for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E8C3A6A07 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAPFQPEp000488 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:26:25 -0500
Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (onlo.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.148]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Scalix SMTP Relay 11.3.0.11339) via ESMTP; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:25:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:25:59 -0500
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
To: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <492C1907.1040908@htt-consult.com>
x-scalix-Hops: 1
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081120)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [Hipsec] BEET discussions
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/hipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Has BEET mode been discussed outside of the HIP list?

In my work last week to get HIP moving to Standards track, it became 
clear that BEET ESP will be a part of this and it will need to be 
reviewed by IPsec-centric people.  Tim Polk already had Sheila Frankel 
looking at it, and Paul Hoffman acknowledged that he would also have to 
review it.

One thing that became evident is that the why of BEET mode is needed to 
be clearly stated.  For example I am missing the explaination that in 
BEET mode, the SA survives changes to the outer IP addresses.

Also the semantics are related to tunnel mode with a nod to tranport mode.

I am still trying to get a feel for the ID.  It still feels like the 
placement of BEET mode with respect to the other modes is defused over 
the document and not well delineated in the beginning.  Not only what 
BEET adds, but what problems occur when you try to do BEET semantics 
with tunnel or transport instead.

I do want to say that I applaud the efforts that went into creating BEET 
mode, developing the current draft, and getting it into the 2.6.27 
kernel (of course I want it in the 2.6.18 kernel as well without 
patching....).


_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec