Re: [IPsec] IKE fragmentation

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 13 March 2013 14:58 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 CE1C221F8DC9 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QRLsLzLtUAdV for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3661A21F8DAC for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ZQx5G6sp9zp2; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
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 2XwmXs2eBNar; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:58:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:58:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1B6F380860; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B436B804F3; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BC5E4CA618BE4508859830CAA8D6A337@buildpc>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1303131057440.27437@nohats.ca>
References: <20799.34490.611737.922474@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <294A12724CB849D2A33F7F80CC82426A@buildpc> <alpine.LFD.2.03.1303130941040.27437@nohats.ca> <4C4F5DE0838E4DCFBAE31A02D7ED5D33@buildpc> <alpine.LFD.2.03.1303131036300.27437@nohats.ca> <BC5E4CA618BE4508859830CAA8D6A337@buildpc>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] IKE fragmentation
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:58:46 -0000

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Valery Smyslov wrote:

>> So does it make sense to say in the document that the first packet
>> must not be fragmented?
>
> If you mean draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation, that limitation must
> be already there. If it is not clear enough, I'll make it more explicit.

I have to re-read the draft again, sorry.

> Or are you talking about the fictional IETF document (not yet written)
> describing existing IKEv1 fragmentation? Probably it is better that
> the authors of that solution document it.

I don't think any IKEv1 documents will ever be written again? :)

Paul