Re: [Hipsec] BEET discussions

Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Pekka Nikander wrote:
>> 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.
>

I have gotten a few emails asking for where the current draft is:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nikander-esp-beet-mode-09.txt

> So then it is valuable to capture in the draft a comparison of BEET to
> Tunnel with header compression?
>
> The 'need' can be clearer. I am almost thinking of a WHY? section after
> the introduction. It would restate things covered elsewhere, but it
> would draw a reader in and present the case for BEET compared to
> transport and wrapping the SA with internal address semantics or tunnel
> with internal header compression, and both with zeroing out the outer
> addresses to gain outer address independence. (I suspect there is more,
> but to me these seem to be the 'high' points).
>
>>
>> --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