IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] IPsecME virtual meeting minutes, and way forward with fragmentation

Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com> Thu, 16 May 2013 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bew@cisco.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 7C3D011E80A3 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 16:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ij4Sgg0mgdVh for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 16:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909B311E80E1 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 16:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1338; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368748511; x=1369958111; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=SfPKvxdF/ORk97kl7927ekFqUjd8JlAaBWBqSFhofQU=; b=gkvIjBOX6dfZd5kyNe7ICoIH6Ck9sf0voO4DdScn9uPcOzStfdFl1xy1 2NqXGgV98mzAOtzvakc4xIX28GPkTTlZLEbusHLPMiW/ht5QNABQzXjv5 +JUphb6zSpONhYqaMWhRX8vfVLaGc2r2Bog6NcKm1o011KZfbeU6cjmzW w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAHJxlVGrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABbgwjCBnsWdIIfAQEBAwE6NAsFCwtGITYGExuHXwMJBQGzXQ2IXoxIgiQzB4J0YQOJH4wzgWaMHYUjgzA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,687,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="81337762"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2013 23:54:52 +0000
Received: from dhcp-128-107-147-78.cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-147-78.cisco.com [128.107.147.78]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4GNsp3u014964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 May 2013 23:54:51 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51950FF7.1050707@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:54:51 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E4D705FB-5DD4-4256-B106-69C13A2715AB@cisco.com>
References: <D49F3A1B-0BB0-4C48-84FB-00D8D86F0B3C@vpnc.org> <51950FF7.1050707@gmail.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] IPsecME virtual meeting minutes, and way forward with fragmentation
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: Thu, 16 May 2013 23:55:19 -0000

On May 16, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As promised, we just had a virtual interim meeting to discuss IKEv2 fragmentation. Please see the minutes below (thanks Paul!).
> 
> Following up on this meeting, we would like to confirm the decision on the mailing list:
> 
> - The group still thinks this is an important problem that needs an interoperable solution.
> - We would like to abandon the work on IKE-over-TCP.
> - And to work on IKEv2 protocol-level fragmentation, using draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation as a starting point.
> 
> Please send your approval, disapproval or comments to the list within a week (until May 23).

I approve.

[snip]

> Yaron: do we want to stay with the current TCP-based solution?
> 	Brian: might be running on sensors that don't have a TCP stack

Someone made this comment, but it wasn't me. 

I did mention that the current TCP-based solution has the advantage of only re-sending the missing TCP segment, whereas current and proposed UDP-based fragmentation solutions re-send all packet fragments. That could be valuable for a VPN gateway with many peers with a lossy network. But that doesn't seem enough of a justification to stay with the current TCP-based solution.

Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email