Re: [IPsec] IANA ikev2 registry and FC values

"Dan Harkins" <> Thu, 17 January 2013 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493D421F8870 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:44:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wccni3ktsB+W for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FEE21F88ED for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCE410224052; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:44:21 -0800
From: Dan Harkins <>
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc:, Tero Kivinen <>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] IANA ikev2 registry and FC values
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:44:28 -0000


On Thu, January 17, 2013 10:23 am, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> I agree that sharing registries with related but different protocols is
> not a good thing. I just think this is not one of these cases.

  I agree that this is not the case but sharing registries should not
be a problem. We use OIDs all the time with different protocols.
The problems arise when a group of people attempts to impose
administrative rules on protocol use and say that some completely
legitimate technical application is prohibited for the simple reason
that they say it is.


> Thanks,
> 	Yaron
> On 01/17/2013 08:13 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>> Yaron Sheffer writes:
>>> OTOH your proposal would mean one more difference between "regular"
>>> IPsec implementations and FC-specific ones. I don't think that would be
>>> a good thing.
>> FC-specific ones are only using these non-truncated ones, and they are
>> using special ID payloads, separate protocol ID values, different
>> types of traffic selectors etc. They are reusing the basic IKEv2
>> protocol, and some of the payloads, but it is different protocol than
>> IKEv2.
>>>> They are not defined for IP use at all. None of the IKEv2/ESP over IP
>>>> uses those values. Ah, found text from our IPsec/IKE Roadmap:
>>>> 		   For HMAC-SHA-1 and HMAC-MD5, the IKEv2 IANA registry
>>>>      contains values for both the truncated version and the standard
>>>> non-
>>>>      truncated version; thus, IKEv2 has the capability to negotiate
>>>> either
>>>>      version of the algorithm.  However, only the truncated version is
>>>>      used for IKEv2 SAs and for IPsec SAs.  The non-truncated version
>>>> is
>>>>      reserved for use by the Fibre Channel protocol [RFC4595].  For
>>>> the
>>>>      other algorithms (AES-XCBC, HMAC-SHA-256/384/512, AES-CMAC, and
>>>> HMAC-
>>>>      RIPEMD), only the truncated version can be used for both IKEv2
>>>> and
>>>>      IPsec-v3 SAs.
>>>> which actually says we always use truncated version (so I was wrong
>>>> they are not forbidden anywhere, missed this text last time as it uses
>>>> SHA-1 spelling not SHA1, which I was searching for :-).
>>> This text is simply describing the existing situation. It is not at all
>>> normative.
>> Which is why I also want to describe that existing situation in the
>> IANA registry. If you want to use those non-truncated versions in
>> IPsec, you can write draft describing that...
>>>> That is true, and I do not consider that as a good thing. It is much
>>>> better to have one good way of doing things than two ways of doing
>>>> same thing, especially if those two ways are about the same.
>>> Yes, but people have good reasons to add algorithms, which is (part of
>>> the reason) why we negotiate them in the protocol. Thus "Tiger",
>>> "camellia" and the like, and I'm sure the FC folks had a good reason
>>> for
>>> the untruncated algorithms, too.
>> They had some reason, but on the other hand IPsec people did not want
>> those untruncated algorithms, and have not specified them for IP use.
>> This is one of the problems when sharing registries causes problems.
>> Suddenly you might have options for protocols which did not request
>> them added to them, because someone else who shares the same registry
>> added them.
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list