IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Simultaneous Child SA Creation tigger from both the side.

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 05 May 2014 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.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 F34091A0636 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 kDgGC9x7todL for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01801A0549 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id l18so7168869wgh.35 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3LkpR80rtA2vz1O4MmANBANE7sfa4hD2pHKmygYGS1U=; b=r95kc/xR278b/ApUmD//6Ou34kAVQLnckPQy0fme2Jdj1Ix4T8YqPBIJ0FEne8+SfY FfHoGqZl7UIre2H4jVH0toMAwAPWEOd5pHfML5fqyS4MVjB8PUvCUKGMkLkhye+5eZw1 sfiKRq2vxJlAduzz9OtwtsevTgk2m7LdvqppSn9HZRLFnqtpn7j/gZ9y7ysRfPoYWuuA yCRyk/7P4IcmAnDU3gERONaB8d6igI1H+jy4mZkrDmmGLjLQybFurrripyvwiNOwEcUm r7mHPanPLGRbzWv2nuASHbQZqfHsOmNwMzSOBbpMgR9eFt+fqmVhk7uWJoa01S+NWFqJ tV+A==
X-Received: by 10.194.71.164 with SMTP id w4mr29655779wju.0.1399322967545; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (bzq-84-109-50-18.red.bezeqint.net. [84.109.50.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hr4sm5012049wjb.28.2014.05.05.13.49.26 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 May 2014 13:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOifJwiRP4qaDvbJTM=m4TKA6RRf3kUo0h-C1ftSOUOS+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 23:49:24 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1D7D673B-B8E1-4070-BC2C-CDA06EFB6387@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.101.1398884441.30377.ipsec@ietf.org> <335B84BDA2818C428E63D9B0ADE6863545AF7228@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DE8FB8A9-23C6-4828-9129-2B70542F96ED@gmail.com> <335B84BDA2818C428E63D9B0ADE6863545AF7A1A@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAK3OfOiMRdSsNTufLAdjxWMvbjqHAYweVDdPRh=hSf8BpBU7nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOifJwiRP4qaDvbJTM=m4TKA6RRf3kUo0h-C1ftSOUOS+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/hz2K4PB0NYfHeYUiI9xQCUg_UKg
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Syed Ajim Hussain <syedah@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Simultaneous Child SA Creation tigger from both the side.
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: Mon, 05 May 2014 20:49:33 -0000

The premise is that the implementation supports just one set of SAs.

So both send out a request, and both receive the other request first, and then the response to their respective original request. If both peers now send out a DELETE to remove the SA initiated by the other side, they will end up with no SAs at all.  

That may be interop, but it’s not a good result.

Yoav

On May 5, 2014, at 10:56 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> Also, it seems clear that any implementation that adheres to the spec
> as it is will either a) produce just one set of SAs in this case (see
> Paul's response), or b) propose N>=1 sets of SAs.  The (b) case should
> interop with the (a) case just fine, resulting in N==1 set of SAs.
> All three possible combinations of implementation behaviors should
> interop.
> 
> Nico
> --

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email