Re: [IPsec] Additional charter items 1/4: Responder MOBIKE

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 16 February 2018 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 C82E1128896 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:52:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 AsttFQuNmzzu for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8502E1200C1 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3zjkM92DHgz4Cc; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:52:37 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1518810757; bh=be7TqpmO+uArlymoGywH3rxoWM23w9GT2Rgvb9jn/7U=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=J31HaoOZYTtrK/GZXEAnoOfBOjQN1B3skBzSxkNDtGaeZCuWfJIolBdtWOrLYuYal thYCHVwYGTbmU8GT4y7z6S6Im0gVHcrfm0jJKcFRxD06O+/g/h3NMNvVxJgfN72CdB OOuqbndFkbRWn21Zgzo3iE6+LAjkQylp3d984yWA=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zo2ljFFisGGd; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:52:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (vpn.nohats.ca [193.110.157.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:52:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 53D0E30B3EC; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:52:35 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 53D0E30B3EC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB6F411ED37; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:52:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:52:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
cc: ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <23175.7252.256625.885691@fireball.acr.fi>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1802161451260.23713@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <23175.7252.256625.885691@fireball.acr.fi>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/u-mSqdS1a5kR7pPsVg165J79tK0>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Additional charter items 1/4: Responder MOBIKE
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 19:52:40 -0000

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> The proposed charter text is
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> MOBIKE protocol [RFC4555] is used to move existing IKE/IPsec SA from
> one IP address to another. However, in MOBIKE it is the initiator of
> the IKE SA (i.e. remote access client) that controls this process. If
> there are several responders each having own IP address and acting
> together as a load sharing cluster, then it is desirable for them to
> have ability to request initiator to switch to a particular member.
> The working group will analyze the possibility to extend MOBIKE
> protocol or to develop new IKE extension that will allow to build load
> sharing clusters in an interoperable way.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It could be also possible that we first start just researching whether
> we actually need any protocol changes, and if so make specifications
> for them, and if not, we might still want to publish some kind of
> informational document describing how those existing mechanisms can be
> used for this purpose.
>
> Send your comments and whether you support adding this to the charter
> to the ipsec list in next two weeks.

I support further discussion on this item, but I would like the
discussion to focus first on the goal (failover/redundancy) and then
look at solutions (maybe re-using/extending MOBIKE)

Paul