Re: [Hipsec] Adam Roach's Abstain on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 04 October 2019 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 7C832120114; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 52N4dVhPL8xZ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76F181208E6; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x94FwSmp018948 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:58:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1570204713; bh=SE84QpxLds7YRFPFrJKbr+GJ8er8grOXkwUtwPKolmQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=LIppDv27YwRhE5G09RSj6WkHKHkpyZ1S6BNPp5xAYrY8rUo30tAahZvF+9YaCv+aF btIMfdFqpfIOPVTI4LOKJv+HXIahmB0ejXwibZ/xROnitq9Jjsr/wXOKM8oEXt/u6j YxNv8xLhcEgilw4MpTHbSKFdhl2y1asm25lkhwFg=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Miika Komu <miika.komu=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>, "hip-chairs@ietf.org" <hip-chairs@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal@ietf.org>
References: <152593099270.10455.6602365389829924376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <83a2fbd94967cc351f30427c449b0df58f53fad6.camel@ericsson.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <71d658f7-7d73-2bbd-75aa-ed04bec0442a@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:58:23 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <83a2fbd94967cc351f30427c449b0df58f53fad6.camel@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/PyvYixedlWGeSY-LqoBn-uw5lt8>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Adam Roach's Abstain on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:58:39 -0000

Thanks for the reply! I think we're getting closer to an answer here, 
but I'm still quite lost on one key aspect.


On 10/4/19 7:15 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
> In the legacy HIP NAT traversal (RFC5770), we have third protocol
> (STUN) on the same port and it does not follow RFC7401 conventions
> because it was not designed with IPsec in mind. As a result,*all*
> packets need to be diverted to an userland daemon in order to separate
> the STUN packets from HIP/ESP.


I can't figure out why this diversion is necessary. What prevents 
characterization of packets in kernel space?

/a