IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Compression, was: Re: draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-03

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 02 September 2016 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54B712D54B for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 gtVpA2tkE2AC for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:56:01 -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 4C32012B015 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3sQpH92h7FzJtY; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 20:55:49 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1472842549; bh=of4s/CfN7G2262NRBaN5XjPsOIXIf4cOSeZPm9DleAM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=tGoCm+xhN3x5mb1B6toMWOz0O9c/6unKpU15VTtAj2tmP9mZU/d4IhNvcpVY3gwDz tMuvEx/uTyZeepAyHothZUndM2WlbaoY5TzSuv+biq6bMq2jUyZwDouqoHxysDa4sT v0tyxGHyqsWUt/ir9s8Y0h+HVBbuVgL/wmjvgj4A=
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 n2xshlJowV7F; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 20:55:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 20:55:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 74EE22ED948; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 74EE22ED948
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F93E4163760; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:55:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:55:47 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9CFB7B2AECC942E5A955BDE66B64E9DE@chichi>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1609021454250.30375@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1609012243220.29817@bofh.nohats.ca> <860ec25d-033d-b12d-541c-423caf3803d7@gmail.com> <16FF5F35-21F7-4789-84CF-5BB99645B13B@nohats.ca> <7e5bc7f3-9fe5-aa54-1d2f-be7da324250d@gmail.com> <E61A523F76664C3CADE5BB495F003AE1@buildpc> <e6d2a06d-76da-7be8-cfc3-246d0c4b1344@gmail.com> <9CFB7B2AECC942E5A955BDE66B64E9DE@chichi>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/0nH8EPD94ME3r0-4Evk5j6QeFKM>
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Compression, was: Re: draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-03
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 18:56:03 -0000

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Valery Smyslov wrote:

> And ESP compression could help applying TFC padding without consuming
> considerable anount of additional bandwidth.

You mean TFC pad to something that's not the MTU ?

Not sure I see how compression + TFC makes smaller packets, unless your
TFC padding is very small or zero, which presumably means the attaker
can get it to become 0 for some cases?

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email