Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tcp-01.txt
"Valery Smyslov" <svanru@gmail.com> Tue, 11 December 2012 12:16 UTC
Return-Path: <svanru@gmail.com>
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 E16BA21F8818 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:16:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6MJuG8yURjUq for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:16:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191B921F8810 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so3116015lah.31 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:16:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=P1eCH2FtZEDL9KjGn8hKkdOQR9vcN9qW83eXrlw1M7k=; b=Fx30xVWYPhddXb/XbKsSRP3q1gnp6lEsKqj5S0hsZCnUXg/LPu7qJE38arQmmv/gxT cG0FGUvLh7MkWxjy2ajRSVoBx26Mjxj61MulB4kxHrP0m0L/eFvolDUa1OnEv3TuJa+t jCBw0ibcHDyurRcYuCEYuZpyyz6uL9l4VKolKqVpip2LZ0Bc33ppDHb2ucrRbhoTYcdF qLS88FxSnxTQLNHYEHJzddaCyqimnX2ipyLdDviQPnJNUsHtcDE0GeW4MkGT3BdkWWWw V1IGsyrB+oVyF7wp2QpZQ3ieWIQLQwYi7JUBG44Djs9h1G9wwMpi/YYzgPVCpOWAf5Vy Bl9g==
Received: by 10.112.29.104 with SMTP id j8mr7616136lbh.0.1355228194086; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from buildpc ([93.188.44.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ne2sm2183818lab.10.2012.12.11.04.16.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <E7FA5DBC7DB747779E6E6D73460A6615@buildpc>
From: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
References: <20121203223404.5441.71025.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:16:18 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tcp-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 11 Dec 2012 12:16:36 -0000
Hi, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the requirement that IKE peer "MUST" advertise NAT device port if it is reachable and "MUST NOT" if it isn't. I think, that IKE Initiator in most cases cannot reliably determine whether it is reachable or not. For example, even if you manually configured port forwarding on your home network border NAT box and then configured IKE to advertise this port, that wouldn't imply that this port is actually reachable as your ISP may have another NAT and, as CGN become more common, number of those nested NAT's will increase. Even STUN might not be a good solution - it is pretty expensive in terms of round trips, requires the presence of STUN server in the same network segment as IKE Responder, utilizes TLS and, most important, deals with UDP only (AFAIK). So, I think that the requirement for IKE Initiator to advertise its support for TCP and port it thinks it is reachable at should be listed as "SHOULD" or even "MAY". Otherwise it sounds like a paradox - protocol requires IKE to do or not to do some action depending on condition that IKE in most cases is unable to determine. Related issues. - in description to TCP Port field in IKE_TCP_SUPPORTED Notification it is written that "If the sender is not subject to network address translation, the port SHOULD be 500." Again, IKE Initiator cannot reliably determine whether it is behind NAT or not. It becomes clear only after initial request completes and NAT_TRAVERSAL_*_IP are processed. - as it is quite possible that the port advertised by IKE Initiator in IKE_TCP_SUPPORTED Notification is actually not reachable, I think it is worth to mention, that if original Responder after IKE SA is established wants to make some request using TCP port advertised by original Initiator and this port appears to be not reachable, this Responder MUST NOT tear down IKE SA but MUST instead fall back to UDP transport. Regards, Valery Smyslov.
- [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tcp-01… internet-drafts
- Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tc… Valery Smyslov
- Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tc… Yoav Nir
- Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tc… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tc… Valery Smyslov
- Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tc… Paul Wouters
- [IPsec] Error in RFC6290 Valery Smyslov
- Re: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290 Yoav Nir
- Re: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290 Valery Smyslov
- Re: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290 Yoav Nir