Re: [IPsec] [I2nsf] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03 (Section 1)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 27 November 2018 13:34 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 19582130DE2; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 05:34:14 -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 tnxV6Mxjkh_W; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 05:34:11 -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 5EB01127133; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 05:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4344WN0C78zFV2; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:34:08 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1543325648; bh=5tYSqhBCHOwxcIy8Tr5IkFuCZEQo5+xYWgITFF6HkvE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ivbNEPrV5cHEkGUHboEdyZoQi7O7rENVPNXk/OS/bX4YAltTsEnwP97GsyGfZpREm bzs6KTJSg5S11fTC763yvCMeclOmpLgxm25AkrVXtnHUrarreqWZNUN5zqFvR2e8Mj TJ1qLy+UhkmuAzGfXWLVkgzhr4WbRG9rdffM3gNc=
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 Y4fqUw_vOX0l; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:34:06 +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; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:34:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 054D44A2C76; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:34:03 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 054D44A2C76
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE0041C3B27; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:34:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:34:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Gabriel Lopez <gabilm@um.es>
cc: i2nsf@ietf.org, "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Rafa Marin Lopez <rafa@um.es>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3415DDC9-ED45-462F-B561-E48773E404FB@um.es>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811270826430.2053@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <A881C135-9BF7-4E93-BB7A-75EB3D1FF605@gmail.com> <6839D47C-4074-486F-9350-8EB7B378036C@um.es> <DAE14995-8504-4134-B021-93D56A4994FB@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811180149220.25604@bofh.nohats.ca> <3415DDC9-ED45-462F-B561-E48773E404FB@um.es>
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/ipsec/DGd_H7LVAXNb2a673jTgi6G8-uw>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] [I2nsf] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03 (Section 1)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:34:14 -0000

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Gabriel Lopez wrote:

> Hi Paul, all
> 
> Please find attached some answers to your comments. Let’s go section by section, it will be easier to follow the discussion.
> 
>
>       El 18 nov 2018, a las 7:52, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>; escribió:
> 
> 
> General comments:
> I'd like to see "Case 1" and "Case 2" replaced with more descriptive terms. I keep losing track of which case is which.
> Perhaps call them IKE Case and IKE-less Case ?
> 
> 
> [Authors] We agree. What about "IKE-full" and "IKE-less" cases?

Hmm, I find "IKE-full" a bit odd (also because in English you would
probably say "full-IKE" and not "IKE-full". Maybe another word could
be "IKE-managed" or "IKE-controled" or "IKE-delegated" ?

> [Authors]  Thanks for the suggestion. Certainly the text is not reflecting the existence of those techniques alleviating the task of establishing IPsec SAs. Nonetheless,
> we have to clarify that this draft is not only guided by the SDWAN scenario and, in fact, it is intended to be applicable in other foreseeable SDN deployments.  With
> this in mind, we propose the following changes in the text:
> 
> 
> s/"Typically, traditional IPsec VPN concentrators and, in general,
>    entities (i.e. hosts or security gateways) supporting IKE/IPsec, must
>    be configured directly by the administrator.  This makes the IPsec
>    security association (SA) management difficult and generates a lack
>    of flexibility, specially if the number of security policies and SAs
>    to handle is high.  With the growth of SDN-based scenarios where
>    network resources are deployed in an autonomous manner, a mechanism
>    to manage IPsec SAs according to the SDN architecture becomes more
>    relevant.  Thus, the SDN-based service described in this document
>    will autonomously deal with IPsec SAs management." /
>    
>    "With the growth of SDN-based scenarios where
>    network resources are deployed in an autonomous manner, a mechanism
>    to manage IPsec SAs according to the SDN architecture becomes more
>    relevant."
>    
> s/"An example of usage can be the notion of Software Defined WAN (SD-
>    WAN), SDN extension providing a software abstraction to create secure
>    network overlays over traditional WAN and branch networks.  SD-WAN is
>    based on IPsec as underlying security protocol and aims to provide
>    flexible, automated, fast deployment and on-demand security network
>    services." /
>    
>    "An example of usage can be the notion of Software Defined WAN (SD-
>    WAN), SDN extension providing a software abstraction to create secure
>    network overlays over traditional WAN and branch networks.  SD-WAN is
>    based on IPsec as underlying security protocol and aims to provide
>    flexible, automated, fast deployment and on-demand security network
>    services. Other examples are host-to-host or full-mesh encryption. 
>    Thus, the SDN-based service described in this document will autonomously deal with IPsec 
>    SAs management.

works for me.

>         The analysis of the host-to-gateway (roadwarrior) scenario is TBD.
>
>       Does this sentence mean this is to be done in this document or is it out
>       of scope for this document (but it does allow it to be added later) ?
> 
> [Authors] We do not see a clear use case for roadwarrior scenarios based on SDN, the proposal
>   is to remove it from this document. 

The case I can think of is if this is a "site to site" connection but
one site is on dynamic IP (eg cable modem or 4g/5g connection) ?

The only difference in yang would be to instead of a static ip or
hostname, to also allow a value of "any IP". In libreswan we use
the string "%any" (and %any4 or %any6) but one could also use 0.0.0.0
to mean that. I don't think it needs any other special handling (other
then making sure an endpoint 0.0.0.0 should not use an IP based
identity.

Paul