RE: IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload
"Yoav Nir" <ynir@CheckPoint.com> Thu, 27 March 2003 10:30 UTC
Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22049 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:30:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA17032 Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:38:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@CheckPoint.com>
To: 'Ravi' <ravivsn@roc.co.in>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: RE: IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:42:02 +0200
Message-ID: <009301c2f43c$bdc5b0e0$292e1dc2@YnirNew>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In-Reply-To: <3E81AE5D.7090301@roc.co.in>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Ravi, The problem with IKE over TCP is that the TCP connection is terminated at the end of the negotiation. If the initiator is behind a NAT device, then the responder loses the ability to negotiate a new CHILD-SA with it, because the mapping in the NAT device is immediately lost. With UDP, it is possible to keep the mapping alive by sending an occasional packet. So, when using IKE over TCP you need to assume one of the following: - no NAT, or - only one side initiates all negotiations Both of these are hard to stomach. Yoav -----Original Message----- From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]On Behalf Of Ravi Hi, I understand this was discussed several times and I could not find clear answer. Please bear with me and I hope some body clarifies it for me. I have some practical problem where the one of TCP/IP stacks which I am working with has limitation of 4K for UDP payload. I understand, when certificate authentication is involved, IKE not only sends the certificate but also multiple CA certificates (if cross chaining is present). This might overshoot the 4K limit. We are trying to work with TCP/IP stack vendor to increase this. But I had this doubt and why UDP is chosen for IKE over TCP. If TCP is chosen, there is no limitation on the payload. It seems DNS RFC does this. It listens on both UDP and TCP port 53. Why can't IKEv2 also standardize both UDP and TCP port 4500? Thanks in advance -- The views presented in this mail are completely mine. The company is not responsible for whatsoever. ---------- Ravi Kumar CH Rendezvous On Chip (i) Pvt Ltd Hyderabad, India Ph: +91-40-2335 1214 / 1175 / 1184 <http://www.roc.co.in>ROC home page
- IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload Ravi
- Re: IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload Vinay K Nallamothu
- RE: IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload Yoav Nir
- RE: IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload Yoav Nir
- Re: IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload Ravi
- Re: IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload Ravi
- RE: IKEv2:limitation of 4k for UDP payload Yoav Nir