Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 02 June 2019 15:09 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 6C3551200F9; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] 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 TABWrml9dhoz; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 233F81200B9; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45H1n36gmWz9Vy; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 17:09:27 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1559488167; bh=ao2IuD1BqMt5zQV6tUkcxaANIbZmLjTSCFHhZIWIWv0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=D0Wkl34jJ6sPkG37Z2RbY1h850evJmQDCUrQvPPOGRRj3cbGUW4jSEFL67Ckxn2GI QNPdnkF3/Ik71FFMKiLIXQzLiXdpc+BxIDox0jA1j8wuISBbOFUrWE25pVu7VW7c8p KWwAk+s0SQdj9YNZ496T8+tGhZycdDxRwJPIdDVI=
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 11BshvqV0S4n; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 17:09:26 +0200 (CEST)
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; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 17:09:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C2D702C40F7; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 11:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca C2D702C40F7
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6787410E45B; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 11:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 11:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
cc: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, Gabriel Lopez <gabilm@um.es>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Fernando_Pere=F1=EDguez_Garc=EDa?= <fernando.pereniguez@cud.upct.es>, Rafa Marin-Lopez <rafa@um.es>
In-Reply-To: <23795.1716.390687.564153@fireball.acr.fi>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1906021105380.1550@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B3869DE@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com> <DBBD75C3-9FB3-473F-A627-062DB3F5C32D@um.es> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1904210811200.1903@bofh.nohats.ca> <ED73306E-F807-42A4-B063-D45E133B8419@um.es> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1905241401320.3939@bofh.nohats.ca> <23795.1716.390687.564153@fireball.acr.fi>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/ltFZyIUDNRI2UOOO7ZuZqI0jtHk>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04
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: Sun, 02 Jun 2019 15:09:33 -0000

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> I.e., if you have separate connections that share same authenticated
> identity then you need to disable INITIAL_CONTACT notifications. Also
> note that INITIAL_CONTACT is between identities, IP addresses, inner
> addresses etc does not matter, only the authenticated identities
> matter.

Sure, but "don't do that" :)

> Note, that AEAD counter is not in the sequence number field, it is in
> the IV field, and every AEAD cipher RFC has text which requires that
> IV field is generated in a way that ensures uniqueness. From RFC4309:

For now, but there are drafts going around that want to re-use the
fields to save a few bytes :P

> When using IKEv2, we do not negotiate anti-replay service, it is
> always assumed to be local matter on the receiver, thus there is no
> need for two peers to agreee on that. On the other hand if anybody
> would want to disable anti-replay, and use non-extended sequence
> numbers, and allow sequence numbers to wrap, then the IKEv2 does not
> offer that option, because it does not allow settign that flag in the
> SAD.

Well, the IKEv2 endpoint that cares about this can just re-key or
re-auth in time before reaching those counters. So yes, it does not
need to be negotiated but it is the IKEv2 daemon handling this. So for
the IKE-less case, I guess it should be there, although this is similar
to the IKE-less case handling maxbytes, maxlife, maxidle counters. I
think it is expected that the NSF sends the kernel message (pfkey,
acquire) to the SC. So it could be avoided in the IKEless case than too.

Paul