Re: [Hipsec] IPCOMP support in HIP

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Thu, 10 March 2016 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0212D12D78F for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:29:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 wVe7aoIEb5so for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:29:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [50.253.254.3]) (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 7656E12D790 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003B7621A5 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:29:25 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Y0xA-6Y8WenK for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:29:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9949B621A3 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:29:18 -0500 (EST)
To: hipsec@ietf.org
References: <56E03F56.5040300@htt-consult.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <56E176AB.5070709@htt-consult.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:29:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56E03F56.5040300@htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/0wyI6O3Hv8JpdhQEcxDSz8Iwx5w>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] IPCOMP support in HIP
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:29:38 -0000

I have found comp in TLS, RFC 3749, so HIP's ESP is the only one missing 
compression.  How did I miss that?  It should have been included in 7402 
as an option within ESP.

I will figure out a way to get it into some RFC, but perhaps a little 
hashing out how it would work is called for first:

IPCOMP parameter is a list.  The parameter number is higher than ESP; 
something like 4111.

RFC 3173 defines the Compression Parameter Index as 2 bytes, so that 
would be the size of the values in the list.

R1 would have a list of supported IPCOMP algorithms.
I2 would have the selected algorithm, or a value of ZERO if none.
R2 would have the confirmed value.

NOTIFY could be used to set up IPCOMP (or change it) at a later time.

Comments?


On 03/09/2016 10:20 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Why did we not create a parameter to negotiate IPCOMP (currently RFC 
> 3173)?
>
> In IKEv2 it is negotiated in NOTIFY messages, not the basic exchange 
> and becomes part of the daughter SA(s).
>
> On contrained networks, IPCOMP could well be of value.  Also if HIP is 
> used to establish the SAs for SSE (draft-moskowitz-sse-02.txt) and the 
> SSE payload is XML, then IPCOMP (or some variant tbd) may be a good 
> thing.
>
> So....
>
> Again, why no IPCOMP parameter?
>
> IPCOMP parameter handled like ESP parameter or like in IKEv2?
>
> How to add an IPCOMP parameter?  If I write a draft for a Generic 
> Protocol Compression, I can include a section that defines an 
> IPCOMP/GPCOMP parameter.  Or I can add it to DEX (don' want to add 
> that at this point, EC25519 fits, IPCOMP is expanding the protocol).
>
> Comments?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>