Re: [Hipsec] BEET discussions

Miika Komu <miika.komu@hiit.fi> Tue, 25 November 2008 15:54 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 8D8F53A6BFD; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:54:19 -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 EDCB53A6BFD for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:54:17 -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 3PwusMzEYjgr for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from creon.otaverkko.fi (creon.otaverkko.fi [212.68.0.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8943A6B8F for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by creon.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE0221AF48; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:54:13 +0200 (EET)
Received: from creon.otaverkko.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (creon.otaverkko.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03817-03; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:54:07 +0200 (EET)
Received: from argo.otaverkko.fi (argo.otaverkko.fi [212.68.0.2]) by creon.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id C033721AF35; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:54:07 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [193.167.187.26] (halko.pc.infrahip.net [193.167.187.26]) by argo.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id B758725ED06; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:54:07 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <492C1F9F.2040303@hiit.fi>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:54:07 +0200
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@hiit.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>
References: <492C1907.1040908@htt-consult.com> <2F7887B7-4121-4DD0-B7DC-6E595DA486EE@nomadiclab.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F7887B7-4121-4DD0-B7DC-6E595DA486EE@nomadiclab.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at otaverkko.fi
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] BEET discussions
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: miika@iki.fi
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

Pekka Nikander wrote:

Hi,

times have also changed since then and there are three interoperable 
BEET implementations now (in linux 2.6.27 kernel, in BSD and the 
userspace BEET). Could you or Jan resubmit the draft to the IETF archives?

> BEET mode was discussed in its early dais, and was basically rejected by 
> the IPsec folks (mainly Steve K) then, mainly due to not being any 
> "need" for it, or just not wanting even to consider a new mode to 
> IPsec.  Then some people claimed that it would be better to simply used 
> inner header compression instead.
> 
> --Pekka
> 
> On 25 Nov 2008, at 17:25, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

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