Re: [IPsec] IANA ikev2 registry and FC values

Yaron Sheffer <> Thu, 17 January 2013 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F8C21F87F5 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:24:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CfE2R2-Vgjru for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD35C21F86CD for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id je9so1573809bkc.27 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:23:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EkaR2OJNtbWGYwMhPiIox2pNuFwhJV/NJGkqCQU0k30=; b=DmwyEWrMZup6VZCZdE9r6gJjIS7sJbJs9Otx6X63yzBjHit/AL5aub5VDYJovCp6eg 6yi/NNlGXCUoyTDrwurwrjCr7DlO5McF3KUcBxkN1KNYcStJIjcY6/OmhP+7UK8+QMNe Z1GoO5wT5/u8kd+1rcJb+DcmL/IljJHH8A2fDSsJAH5kcsPI7/qumBjt+GRFY8NdMhsg 2YL/shWNXI88jZBlXI4K6E5VPrUPNq28OkUvZGxnOb9m1uUv+KzBYg/I5iiYh/S+rF90 6SM5J8gZPO/6tSNW4jmznuhTfRqPfaI4hdTEZ4uexsCQGTdBhKFEjZ/y6FD/duJke8zT LUNg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id o24mr1782667bko.19.1358447037803; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:23:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id o9sm2122082bko.15.2013. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:23:52 +0200
From: Yaron Sheffer <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tero Kivinen <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [IPsec] IANA ikev2 registry and FC values
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:24:01 -0000

I agree that sharing registries with related but different protocols is 
not a good thing. I just think this is not one of these cases.


On 01/17/2013 08:13 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Yaron Sheffer writes:
>> OTOH your proposal would mean one more difference between "regular"
>> IPsec implementations and FC-specific ones. I don't think that would be
>> a good thing.
> FC-specific ones are only using these non-truncated ones, and they are
> using special ID payloads, separate protocol ID values, different
> types of traffic selectors etc. They are reusing the basic IKEv2
> protocol, and some of the payloads, but it is different protocol than
> IKEv2.
>>> They are not defined for IP use at all. None of the IKEv2/ESP over IP
>>> uses those values. Ah, found text from our IPsec/IKE Roadmap:
>>> 		   For HMAC-SHA-1 and HMAC-MD5, the IKEv2 IANA registry
>>>      contains values for both the truncated version and the standard non-
>>>      truncated version; thus, IKEv2 has the capability to negotiate either
>>>      version of the algorithm.  However, only the truncated version is
>>>      used for IKEv2 SAs and for IPsec SAs.  The non-truncated version is
>>>      reserved for use by the Fibre Channel protocol [RFC4595].  For the
>>>      other algorithms (AES-XCBC, HMAC-SHA-256/384/512, AES-CMAC, and HMAC-
>>>      RIPEMD), only the truncated version can be used for both IKEv2 and
>>>      IPsec-v3 SAs.
>>> which actually says we always use truncated version (so I was wrong
>>> they are not forbidden anywhere, missed this text last time as it uses
>>> SHA-1 spelling not SHA1, which I was searching for :-).
>> This text is simply describing the existing situation. It is not at all
>> normative.
> Which is why I also want to describe that existing situation in the
> IANA registry. If you want to use those non-truncated versions in
> IPsec, you can write draft describing that...
>>> That is true, and I do not consider that as a good thing. It is much
>>> better to have one good way of doing things than two ways of doing
>>> same thing, especially if those two ways are about the same.
>> Yes, but people have good reasons to add algorithms, which is (part of
>> the reason) why we negotiate them in the protocol. Thus "Tiger",
>> "camellia" and the like, and I'm sure the FC folks had a good reason for
>> the untruncated algorithms, too.
> They had some reason, but on the other hand IPsec people did not want
> those untruncated algorithms, and have not specified them for IP use.
> This is one of the problems when sharing registries causes problems.
> Suddenly you might have options for protocols which did not request
> them added to them, because someone else who shares the same registry
> added them.