Re: [Hipsec] BEET discussions

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Tue, 25 November 2008 22:06 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 1F1B528C1BE; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:06:24 -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 7B6B528C1BC for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:06:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <e-eIIgyb2Rb7>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Header field occurs more than once: "References" occurs 3 times
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 e-eIIgyb2Rb7 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB2528C1AF for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:06:22 -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 mAPM5m8v022383 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:05:48 -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 17:05:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:06:01 -0500
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
To: hipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <492C76C9.5040304@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <492C1F9F.2040303@hiit.fi>
References: <492C1907.1040908@htt-consult.com>
References: <2F7887B7-4121-4DD0-B7DC-6E595DA486EE@nomadiclab.com>
References: <492C1F9F.2040303@hiit.fi>
x-scalix-Hops: 1
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081120)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [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

Miika Komu wrote:
> 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?

Draft 9 is already out there. They did this for me back after I visited
Helsinki.


>
>> 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