Re: [IPsec] Labeled IPsec options

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 13 December 2019 14:51 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 3A43C120219 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:51:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 yakDJj5io3rx for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 0E350120855 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ZDBd5kffzDXJ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:51:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1576248681; bh=TVm6bQUaUoI7Yp0qi8sAezZ9t8awqeHjdvr9SMfv9fg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=kbEX+T+PrWCF2O/Qwi5OCNpPQeBuMHfa891EigzIGaDNVPdrUYa/A5elnaEjiVH3F 3p6JEfMrYxz5nF50DcqW/WyHSafB0XRa/vhNF6fqjAAbG3FRTqvTnoVLQxkes2VpSw ndsrqQL5+SEM8KX/5LbFPD8bhT4AV7gYIQEnbcUI=
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 TN7MR7MRfp7c; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:51:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:51:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CB2F26007ADD; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:51:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C792066AA8; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:51:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:51:19 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Hu, Jun (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jun.hu@nokia.com>
cc: "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Sahana Prasad <sahana@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM5PR0701MB2353880DFB9B9BB875A8340295540@AM5PR0701MB2353.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1912130946340.8529@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1912092333560.23963@bofh.nohats.ca> <AM5PR0701MB2353D18756E93CD302C43ABF955A0@AM5PR0701MB2353.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1912121623440.22484@bofh.nohats.ca> <AM5PR0701MB2353880DFB9B9BB875A8340295540@AM5PR0701MB2353.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/b5VZkw79w_Da8JAbiQV7Mq2L2Fs>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Labeled IPsec options
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 13 Dec 2019 14:51:44 -0000

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, Hu, Jun (Nokia - US/Mountain View) wrote:

>> If you select multiple TS's these all become part of one Child SA. So I think the granularity of the label does not change between the solutions?
>
> [Hu Jun] if we agree that label is per CHILD_SA, then with option 1 or 2, there is possibility for invalid TS combination, following are some examples of invalid TS:
> - with option-1: There are two TS in TSi, first TS contains label-1, 2nd TS contains label-2

This issue is similar to network ranges though. Say you want to have:
10.0.1.0/24 <-> 192.168.0.0/16
10.0.2.0/24 <-> 172.16.100.0/24

Then you can also not have a TSi containing 10.0.1.0/24, 10.0.2.0/24 and
a TSr containing 192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.100.0/24

With 10.0.1.0/24+SEC_LABEL1 and 10.0.1.0/24+SEC_LABEL2 youl have a
similar issue, that is you would need to use a seperate CREATE_CHILD_SA
to prevent the mixup of TS elements.

> - with option-2: TSi contains label-1, while TSr contains a different label-2

Yes, see above.

> With option-3/4 there is no such concern

Since the notify or new payload type would be the same for all other TS
parts, you do have the same problem. You also need a different CREATE_CHILD_SA
negotiation to specify the different label. So I don't think what you
describe is a new issue only affecting some of the solution options. All
solutions need a similar workaround to prevent the mixup.

Paul