IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I2nsf] Let's try to draw closure for sdn-ipsec-flow-protection ( RE: Reviewing sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 01 March 2019 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64797130EAE; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:41:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 goi2bFW1hYEK; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 D24B3130E90; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449wCb2r0vz9qB; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:40:59 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1551458459; bh=POKvRdokEQd4/jucoywKSXn1AtyrMkW+yT80nw7RhUI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Scaa+g11QQGfqAFGcgupyXb96mIJ9U5jipqDirhCVuPGPQ2YeQdIEU20NIKo2YHcd ZtNQjcpAnXCKW7MeYLDnWeriICgKKp46W/5VM7MfobfHW3zX4yF+Uws/XsUGeFG1Q8 UQ1rI/p0SP0juQyadqZv0WDbg8nBsib/7xYRN++I=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oFFfmOYA7iRg; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:40:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:40:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 200AB5C848; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:40:56 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 200AB5C848
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1434340D358A; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:40:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 11:40:56 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
cc: Rafa Marin-Lopez <rafa@um.es>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, Fernando Pereñíguez García <fernando.pereniguez@cud.upct.es>, Gabriel Lopez <gabilm@um.es>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B2C7CC3@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903011136530.12900@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B2C71AA@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com> <B05FCEFD-B617-416F-BE3B-2D4E472F6D39@um.es> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B2C7CC3@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/i8RJy33zhV8nS1vhguXfWQnyHUA>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Let's try to draw closure for sdn-ipsec-flow-protection ( RE: Reviewing sdn-ipsec-flow-protection
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <i2nsf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:41:06 -0000


>       During IETF103, authors of draft-carrel-ipsecme-controller-ike stated that 3rd case (Controller-IKE) should be added
>       to the document.
> 
> We thought it was still an open debate. In fact, I mentioned in the last meeting that between case 1 and case 3, I would prefer
> case 1 (IKE case) since as I said ( minute 1:05:03) I do not see any advantage provided by Controller-IKE. Any feature included
> in Controller-IKE is already in case 1. Therefore, the question about what are the advantages of Controller-IKE vs case 1 has not
> been answered yet, in my humble opinion.

I'm concerned about draft-carrel-ipsecme-controller-ike. I think it
would be good that before anything is decided here, is that the authors
of that draft present their idea at the IPsecME WG first. It's a bit
scary that large parts of IKEv2 (eg authentication) is left out, and
KEYMAT generation is modified from the original IKE version, and that
SPI number generation is used as a shorthand for confirming policy
negotiation.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email