Re: [IPsec] Discussion of draft-pwouters-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 28 October 2022 15:45 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 035C9C14F749 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 08:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9WdIdj6nSZ_b for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 08:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::85]) (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 97612C14F745 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 08:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4MzRgs2CFLz1jD; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 17:44:57 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1666971897; bh=LQn7zWxL/Y//sWQ9kTbwPYlpB2GievL2CDtG8OcaHwM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=MO3n424cD4aMG++yECWFYs2uOjw4/u+e32yIMH5LQo4F/Nxd4L3HZs1m8TJKXj6Sn J4hspmB2bmjZiIWIh352KvLrEA5W24tvVs/A+GLzwoFcJBTiFusI1NBsLeNK6EDvny R7UODeC64oNOk06fpKdKbdqeV+rMlgVWE/R4V8GE=
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 KXNeuXBukuv1; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 17:44:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 17:44:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 389DD40053C; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3535740053B; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:54 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Guillaume Solignac (gsoligna)" <gsoligna@cisco.com>
cc: IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, "Dang, Quynh H. (Fed)" <quynh.dang@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <DS7PR11MB61756DE15C01317C236098E0D6329@DS7PR11MB6175.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <3d7bfbb7-716d-bb9c-59be-7356ea89085@nohats.ca>
References: <DM6PR11MB4531023D4E06E619BAC9935DCB339@DM6PR11MB4531.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <E7B7E898-DD1D-4737-9FFF-7558F1C5EE78@nohats.ca> <DS7PR11MB61756DE15C01317C236098E0D6329@DS7PR11MB6175.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/a2ff5DSy4-1zqLM71cB-8aPe_C4>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Discussion of draft-pwouters-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 15:45:05 -0000

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Guillaume Solignac (gsoligna) wrote:

>>> Is this requirement only based on not reusing the same IV on different cores or is there an additional factor I missed?
>> For AES-GCM there is a 2^32 max operations per private key as well.
>
> Are you referring to NIST SP 800-38D § 8.3 ? This is the closest I could find to this restriction. But the 2^32 invocation limitation does not seem to apply when the IV is 96 bits long and deterministic (which is the case in AES-GCM ESP RFC4106).

Yes that is what I was referring to.

I see in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4106

 	3.1.  Initialization Vector (IV)

 		The AES-GCM-ESP IV field MUST be eight octets.


Now the nonce is a 4 octet salt plus the IV, which would make 96 bits.
But as always, I am uncertain of the terminology as RFCs and NIST
use different terms for IV, ICV, salt, nonce etc.

Maybe someone from NIST can help us here, as I am very interested in
this answer. Added Quynh to the CC: in the hope that he knows :)

Paul