Re: [IPsec] WESP - Roadmap Ahead

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

At 7:44 AM +0530 11/12/09, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
>Steve,
>
>>  I would have no problem deprecating AH in the context of the IPsec
>>  architecture document, if others agree. It is less efficient  than
>>  ESP-NULL. However, other WGs have cited AH as the IPsec protocol of
>>  choice for integrity/authentication in their environments, so there
>>  will be a need to coordinate with them, and it may be unacceptable to
>>  kill AH as a standalone protocol for them.
>
>I agree that it is a trifle too early to start deprecating AH, 
>though I wouldn't mind doing so. OTOH, don't most WGs already 
>suggest AH as a MAY, and ESP-NULL as a MUST?

Not always. For example, I believe that OSPF security makes use of 
AH, outside the IPsec context.

>In any case what should be the stand for the newer work that comes 
>out of these WGs. Should they spell out support for AH, or should 
>they just be talking about ESP (or ESP-NULL or WESP)?

I'd recommend ESP-NULL, unless the context on which the operate might 
require inspection by an intermediate system.

>If we want to deprecate AH, or at least discourage its use in the 
>context of the IPSec architecture in the near future then shouldn't 
>we be working on this?

Part of the problem is that some WGs want to make use of IPsec 
protocols outside of the IPsec architecture.

>  > I am not comfortable with the notion of ESP with WESP.  WESP adds
>  > more per-packet overhead than ESP, and some users are very sensitive
>>  to this aspect of IPsec use. Also, other WG rely on ESP and we would
>>  need to convince them that the packet inspection features of WESP
>>  merit making changes to their standards, which might be a tough sell.
>
>I agree. However, we should start socializing WESP in other WGs so 
>that folks are at least aware of it.

Agree.