[IPsec] Multiple IPsec proposals, same SPI?

Dan McDonald <dan.mcdonald@oracle.com> Thu, 29 April 2010 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dan.mcdonald@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66AC3A67D7 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h3cepKWsuz+R for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com (rcsinet10.oracle.com [148.87.113.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150803A68FC for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o3TKF7Ld007329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:15:09 GMT
Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o3TId1NJ015257 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:15:07 GMT
Received: from abhmt013.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 222216891272571996; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:13:16 -0700
Received: from everywhere.SFBay.Sun.COM (/129.146.109.249) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:13:16 -0700
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:13:12 -0400
From: Dan McDonald <dan.mcdonald@oracle.com>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20100429201312.GA1499@everywhere.SFBay.Sun.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Organization: Oracle - Solaris Security (hon. Networking)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Auth-Type: Internal IP
X-Source-IP: rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]
X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4BD9E8CE.0021:SCFMA4539811,ss=1,fgs=0
Subject: [IPsec] Multiple IPsec proposals, same SPI?
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:15:26 -0000

Consider the example in section 3.3 of IKEv2bis, which I've edited for
brevity:

   SA Payload
      |
      +--- Proposal #1 ( Proto ID = ESP(3), SPI size = 4,
      |     |            7 transforms,      SPI = 0x052357bb )

	(either way for ESN, three CBC ciphers, two hashes)

      +--- Proposal #2 ( Proto ID = ESP(3), SPI size = 4,
            |            4 transforms,      SPI = 0x35a1d6f2 )
	(either way for ESN, two GCM ciphers)

the example shows two distinct SPI values.

Is it *required* that the SPI values be different?  For example, PF_KEY has
SADB_GETSPI which merely reserves an inbound SPI value, without ANY other
properties attached.  IN theory, given the above example, I could instead
issue:

   SA Payload
      |
      +--- Proposal #1 ( Proto ID = ESP(3), SPI size = 4,
      |     |            7 transforms,      SPI = 0x052357bb )

	(either way for ESN, three CBC ciphers, two hashes)

      +--- Proposal #2 ( Proto ID = ESP(3), SPI size = 4,
            |            4 transforms,      SPI = 0x052357bb )
	(either way for ESN, two GCM ciphers)

since I merely did a GETSPI which reserved 0x052357bb.

Thanks,
Dan