IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] WESP - Roadmap Ahead

"Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 16 November 2009 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.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 4C3843A6AA1 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:21:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 DkMCs7JENLqc for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoemail2.alcatel.com (hoemail2.alcatel.com [192.160.6.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529E73A6978 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from horh1.usa.alcatel.com (h172-22-218-55.lucent.com [172.22.218.55]) by hoemail2.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id nAGELUrB021530; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:21:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail.apac.alcatel-lucent.com (aprelay03.apac.alcatel-lucent.com [202.65.2.133]) by horh1.usa.alcatel.com (8.13.8/emsr) with ESMTP id nAGELTWU013705; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:21:30 -0600 (CST)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub02.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.35]) by mail.apac.alcatel-lucent.com (8.13.7/8.13.7/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id nAGENs8u017958; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:24:50 +0800
Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.56]) by INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.35]) with mapi; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:50:33 +0530
From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:50:31 +0530
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] WESP - Roadmap Ahead
Thread-Index: AcpmvgBVj9/tnnYAQkCAuP4OqweGLAACZRew
Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350AB2C86581@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <dc8fd0140911110805q67759507t6cf75a1e9d81c5aa@mail.gmail.com> <19200.8786.266973.313959@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350AB2C86306@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <19201.20208.563706.519993@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <19201.20208.563706.519993@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 172.22.12.28
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 202.65.2.133
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] WESP - Roadmap Ahead
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: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:21:37 -0000

This is an implementation specific optimization that has already been solved in multiple implementations.

Cheers, Manav

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:kivinen@iki.fi] 
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6.39 PM
> To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
> Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [IPsec] WESP - Roadmap Ahead
> 
> Bhatia, Manav (Manav) writes:
> > And the reason why you might want to use WESP is to prioritize
> > certain protocol packets over the others, as is normally done for v4
> > control packets (e.g. OSPFv3 HELLOs and ACKs over other OSPFv3
> > packets) 
> 
> You cannot do that, as if the packets get reordered more than what is
> the replay window size of the responder, then older packets will get
> dropped. If you want to do QoS you need to use multiple IPsec SAs each
> carrying only one traffic for one QoS level.
> 
> See RFC4301 section 4.1.
> -- 
> kivinen@iki.fi
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email