Re: [Lwip] Suggestions in draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp

"Tobias Guggemos" <guggemos@nm.ifi.lmu.de> Thu, 20 July 2017 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <guggemos@nm.ifi.lmu.de>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F021D127869; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 DIK7pj25g_xs; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acheron.ifi.lmu.de (acheron.ifi.lmu.de [IPv6:2001:4ca0:4000:1:129:187:214:135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14732127735; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP58DFL8T (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:f52f:c23a:43d1:1a04]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: guggemos) by acheron.ifi.lmu.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7860135C0E8; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:38:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tobias Guggemos <guggemos@nm.ifi.lmu.de>
To: 'Raja ashok' <raja.ashok@huawei.com>, draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp@ietf.org
Cc: lwip@ietf.org, IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
References: <FDFEA8C9B9B6BD4685DCC959079C81F5E22F9321@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <FDFEA8C9B9B6BD4685DCC959079C81F5E22F9321@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:38:43 +0200
Message-ID: <002d01d30133$9895a460$c9c0ed20$@nm.ifi.lmu.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01D30144.5C232F50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdL8rIhJZBwSrJwqQ9WHqW7lnBPV2wEhLe+A
Content-Language: de
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/sFOVsuSD1f2DXA7H8hOsnNGOiaM>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Suggestions in draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight IP stack <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:38:53 -0000

Hey Ashok,

thanks for your feedback.

For your first comment I tend to agree and I think we can add this to the
draft!

For the second, I agree with your assumption that tunnels might appear in
constrained scenarios (it’s actually one of our main goals for ipsec/esp).
However, I’m not sure if this recommendation to not use fragmentation is
valid on a security side, why I’d like to give the question to the ipsecme
WG, if that does not open any other security issues? Or if there is anything
else to consider on that?

Thanks

Tobias

 

Von: Raja ashok [mailto:raja.ashok@huawei.com] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Juli 2017 16:22
An: draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp@ietf.org
Cc: lwip@ietf.org
Betreff: Suggestions in draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp 

 

Hi Daniel & Tobias,

 

I gone through the lwIG draft for ESP. I am having some doubts and
suggestions which are listed below. Please check and provide your comments.

 

1)     For replay protection, RFC 4303 suggests to use 32 or 64 bit window.
I feel in this draft, we can recommend to use 32 bit window for replay
protection.

 

2)     Tunneled ESP msg with fragmented IP header (in ESP payload) may leads
to DoS vulnerability for a constraint receiver. RFC 4303 is suggesting this
fragmentation as optional. So I feel we can mention as fragmentation and
reassembly is not required to support in tunneled IP header. As it can be
handled by the IP header which carries ESP msg. I hope tunneled ESP msg
might be required in some scenarios of constraint devices also.

 

Regards,

Ashok

 

  _____  



Raja Ashok V K
Huawei Technologies
Bangalore, India
http://www.huawei.com 

  _____  

本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群
组。禁
止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发)本邮
件中
的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件!
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which 
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any
use of the 
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
total or partial 
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
intended 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender by 
phone or email immediately and delete it!