IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 20 March 2017 15:38 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 197A5127A97 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 08:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 hG75VrOU-Y3M for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 08:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 90A07127601 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 08:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vn0TD2SPrz3Fn; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:38:08 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1490024288; bh=gT3hXDkayW3/6U6KKAXuEt/7a9HlZZV1XgsPzvYm9zA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=NNQHEWfcP1WQyrVN56Nj/GxK6aGYMoUU0tWt8HXp8WKlEmwqQRC/b9KtNQrJR/G3R xcBEYUQP5vfpcGwzQ5DdND4fLLqKtdX+IH2vxMKpGFl/SjHnZ9b6ttigQsf4uIIc0F FDVidcuX+xuYraYeC62ylrFZeuZ3fUYHS62zp3ms=
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 78CTJbm3FWoO; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:38:07 +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; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:38:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6DE2A39D3A6; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:38:05 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 6DE2A39D3A6
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9D64144902; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:38:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:38:05 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
cc: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBM-83Q-j=VEQahJPer4w=Cve1h2seJRquZsrdhnXj1JqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703201132380.18647@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CABcZeBPMR9m8zPdhG4Bc3DHWj9UmVq22Z7G4ApYjBGJeC7MU=A@mail.gmail.com> <A5D592C8-AEE0-4675-88AE-0064FD52B49B@gmail.com> <CABcZeBPiZmWBJEW5PYFDafS_v3dumEkS285MAifme85-ziu=ig@mail.gmail.com> <08CAB6F1-EA5C-4FA6-A9E9-1D7A87997470@apple.com> <CABcZeBM-83Q-j=VEQahJPer4w=Cve1h2seJRquZsrdhnXj1JqQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.999 (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/U0NW0hZLi5HkPpjbb0w8KTmqFFs>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:38:12 -0000

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> I haven't fully thought this through, but if yu can switch-hit between TCP and UDP,why can't you just race the setup between TCP and UDP and then if you
> start
> getting packets on UDP, cut over to that. 

There should really be a STRONG preference for UDP:

- (encrypted) TCP in TCP with packetloss _really_ performs poorly and
   should be avoided at all costs

- there is a reason IKE/IPsec uses UDP and ESP and not TCP. It is not
   susceptible to (spoofed) TCP-RST packets :P

> Maybe I'm just too influenced by ICE :)

Yes, we are not limited to flow-level security :)

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email