Re: [IPsec] Draft: IKEv2/IPsec Context Definition

Daniel Palomares <daniel.palomares.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel.palomares.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C429D1A00F2 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:17:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 BsguE81TGWSv for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:17:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x243.google.com (mail-ie0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FCF71A002C for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:17:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f195.google.com with SMTP id to1so1284689ieb.6 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:17:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JzXunWNHj6ZgZOhPt7JtMwDcCAXXHvg7oF4cCis9QD4=; b=x5YayK8DoIQMOlzLfIeH9cebgJnj4JvaJClNXQYS6oYfT09VbPWQzg3JLjIuAZo4nd M4ceNeAcUu8WLXwhjOAbpSCfzWGnqNKSronaqSB0ZBd99tOXK7Tg/q0Sp6JXPFgFpICo VOpvXX6rpvHOnf8q5MfKUAnN/YxJnosMhrkRA30h/QbP7nUrCC2MdbuzigSHlO8k19VN 3dIEBuO2bAnyWSRJBWw0zZ3C04Vd6GvuXOVhpHndbH/N6T7GjXFdz1zQuFPqYUyC5gqg dSldpU6vZDVxOoB4cCSffZxmyeYQ4dhrN7RG9VxqS6ObgU1hq0AkC9sRI+gt6PFZADuA x7mg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.58.19 with SMTP id wi19mr2861920icb.53.1392747431522; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.40.131 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:17:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+dB4X7Q0BgOhZ_FKKp6eYA7jhZn=CsqEZ6Mit4EruHPojt5aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHf5+hrQ52GPKsAZJF4ZyhFNXgwZJOTEm8u-KKqVbta6Bj=N1g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+dB4X4iRjk9hH3wyX8Qj93Kd77BnvGpsm=FK3OHho=S-+Ngiw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+dB4X7Q0BgOhZ_FKKp6eYA7jhZn=CsqEZ6Mit4EruHPojt5aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:17:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHf5+hqQ--k6DQsK9ChW6D18wpY6i4gUgN_dGoTR4CvexwGq-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Palomares <daniel.palomares.ietf@gmail.com>
To: yogendra pal <jntupal@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51f9663eaf75b04f2b247eb
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/aMlyflfzSXSRYs3SY79Y03ykDmk
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Draft: IKEv2/IPsec Context Definition
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:17:18 -0000

Hi Yogendra,

Thank you for your comments and pointing out the lack of the IPComp
parameter.
I will update the draft including the IPComp flag , as well as the IPcomp
algo and the cpi-in/out values.

I understand when you say  the draft "SHOULD capture at least
*instance-id*or *flow-id".
*However, I'm not familiar with this definitions as IKEv2 or IPsec
standards. Please don't hesitate to address me to those documents if they
are actually standardized.

On the other hand, I could understand that those parameters you just
mention (*instance-id* and *flow-id*), might be proprietary solutions to
improve IPsec treatment among several processing units. If it is the case,
I believe that our document may introduce supplementary information in the
context prior some negotiation, but I believe we should let the whole
mailing-list discuss about this.

By now, our wish is to isolate the IKEv2 and IPsec mandatory parameters in
order to keep an IKEv2/IPsec session alive.

KR,
Daniel Palomares




2014-02-18 17:25 GMT+01:00 yogendra pal <jntupal@gmail.com>om>:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Given that ike and ipsec can runs on different context and nodes, context
> SHOULD capture at least *instance-id* or *flow-id*. This *instance-id*can help the node to identify which packet processing unit will process
> this ipsec traffic or which ipsec instance out of multiple ipsec processing
> unit will process this ipsec traffic.
>
> Let me take a simple example case to explain:
>
> On a node A, which has 10 processing unit (pu) = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}
> and out of which ike is using single unit = {1} and ipsec is using 7
> processing unit(s) = {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} and other processing units = {9,10}
> for general purpose.
>
> Each IPsec SA processing can be tied with specific processing unit and can
> be called as *instance-id *or *flow-id*. This SA can hold *instance-id *or
> *flow-id *information. Upon sync up of context for each IPsec SA to other
> node B upon failure, it can process the same SA on specific *instance-id*or
> *flow-id.*
>
> P.S: If your need some text around this, I can provide you a example and
> usage of it.
>
> BR,
> Yogendra Pal
> (Ericsson, India)
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, yogendra pal <jntupal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Quickly went through your draft, have one input for you,
>> [In section "*5. IPsec Session parameters*"]
>>  - Consider to have case of IPCOMP also for ipsec session parameters.
>>
>>
>> BR,
>> Yogendra Pal
>> (Ericsson)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Palomares <
>> daniel.palomares.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please find a draft we have Posted. They concern the definition of IKEv2
>>> and IPsec contexts.
>>> Comments are welcome,
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Daniel Palomares
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Name:        draft-plmrs-ipsecme-ipsec-ikev2-context-definition.
>>>
>>> Revision: 00
>>> Title:       IKEv2/IPsec Context Definition
>>> Document date:    2014-02-12
>>> Group:        Individual Submission
>>> Pages:        8
>>> URL:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-plmrs-ipsecme-ipsec-ikev2-context-definition-00.txt<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mglt-dice-diet-esp-00.txt>
>>> Status:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-plmrs-ipsecme-ipsec-ikev2-context-definition/
>>> Htmlized:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-plmrs-ipsecme-ipsec-ikev2-context-definition-00
>>>
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>>
>>>    IPsec/IKEv2 clusters are constituted of multiple nodes accessed via a
>>>    single address by the end user.  The traffic is then split between
>>>    the nodes via specific IP load balancing policies.  Once a session is
>>>    assigned to a given node, IPsec makes it difficult to assign the
>>>    session to another node.  This makes management operations and
>>>    transparent high availability for end users difficult to perform
>>>    within the cluster.
>>>
>>>    This document describes the contexts for IKEv2 and IPsec that MUST be
>>>    transferred between two nodes so a session can be restored.  This
>>>    makes possible to transfer an IPsec session transparently to the end
>>>    user.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Daniel* *PALOMARES*
>>>
>>> *Orange Labs, Issy-les-Moulineaux*
>>>
>>> +33 6 34 23 07 88
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPsec mailing list
>>> IPsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>