IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec

"Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com> Tue, 25 January 2011 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <julienl@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953A33A68BD for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:45:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aboqrFqrPz-l for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:45:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DEA3A68A2 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:45:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=julienl@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1295995736; x=1327531736; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: x-originating-ip:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; z=From:=20"Laganier,=20Julien"=20<julienl@qualcomm.com> |To:=20"Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com"=20<Basavaraj.Patil@nok ia.com>,=0D=0A=09"arno@natisbad.org"=20<arno@natisbad.org >,=20"jan@go6.si"=20<jan@go6.si>|CC:=20"mext@ietf.org"=20 <mext@ietf.org>|Subject:=20RE:=20[MEXT]=20Call=20for=20WG =20adoption=20of=20I-D:=0D=0A=20draft-korhonen-mext-mip6- altsec|Thread-Topic:=20[MEXT]=20Call=20for=20WG=20adoptio n=20of=20I-D:=0D=0A=20draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec |Thread-Index:=20AQHLvBKaOXOYKRxBgE2Iml9N3D281pPiSosQ |Date:=20Tue,=2025=20Jan=202011=2022:48:54=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<98A16B2D00B5724F81E80EF1927A029703E3FB@na sanexd01e.na.qualcomm.com>|References:=20<878vyarmku.fsf@ natisbad.org>=0D=0A=20<C963527A.D013%basavaraj.patil@noki a.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<C963527A.D013%basavaraj.patil@noki a.com>|Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|x-originating-ip: =20[172.30.39.5]|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset =3D"us-ascii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printab le|MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=XJTaWmljJusiimIXy7a3mLzMU/p3KGCa/5612E2gUTg=; b=EwM8VYDLz7He7J0PlNT3fyYaZyasRbPxhOK5mThsmPr6aP+osTVqE19s X0cWMFrUzYjaIXccAQz2u2KbBxxultte38Az6gZwGL76XPLn+/tUGbR5r x0l52DZiRu/1+yXUAy5O/y1VoEqu68yHTo4MbLG6EOMLzj/IhKKa5OVaP 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6237"; a="71750182"
Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2011 14:48:56 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,374,1291622400"; d="scan'208";a="24808699"
Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.2]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Jan 2011 14:48:55 -0800
Received: from NASANEXD01E.na.qualcomm.com ([fe80::6555:8c37:4ee3:efc4]) by nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:48:55 -0800
From: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
To: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>, "arno@natisbad.org" <arno@natisbad.org>, "jan@go6.si" <jan@go6.si>
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
Thread-Index: AQHLvBKaOXOYKRxBgE2Iml9N3D281pPiSosQ
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:48:54 +0000
Message-ID: <98A16B2D00B5724F81E80EF1927A029703E3FB@nasanexd01e.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <878vyarmku.fsf@natisbad.org> <C963527A.D013%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C963527A.D013%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.30.39.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:45:58 -0000

Hi Raj,
 
> Inline:
> 
> On 1/24/11 3:58 PM, "ext Arnaud Ebalard" <arno@natisbad.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> >To me, what the draft describes is a patchwork based on MIPv6, ESP and
> >TLS. Instead of building on top of those protocols (read modularity
> and
> >interoperability), it reuses (hijacks) various blocks of associated
> >standards in a non-modular way. For instance, one has to reimplement
> ESP
> >in userspace to support the protocol.
> 
> We are specifying an encapsulation method in the I-D. To say that one
> has to reimplement ESP in userspace is incorrect.

The encapsulation format you have in the I-D is:

0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
:         IPv4 or IPv6 header (src-addr=Xa, dst-addr=Ya)        :
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
:            UDP header (src-port=Xp,dst-port=Yp)               :
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------
|PType=8|                    SPI                                | ^Int.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Cov-
|                      Sequence Number                          | |ered
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ----
|                    Payload Data* (variable)                   | |   ^
:                                                               : |   |
|                                                               | |Conf.
+               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Cov-
|               |     Padding (0-255 bytes)                     | |ered*
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |   |
|                               |  Pad Length   | Next Header   | v   v
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------
|         Integrity Check Value-ICV   (variable)                |
:                                                               :
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 7: UDP Encapsulated Binding Management Message Format

Which looks like a copy/paste of the ESP specification [RFC4303]:

0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ----
|               Security Parameters Index (SPI)                 | ^Int.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Cov-
|                      Sequence Number                          | |ered
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ----
|                    Payload Data* (variable)                   | |   ^
~                                                               ~ |   |
|                                                               | |Conf.
+               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Cov-
|               |     Padding (0-255 bytes)                     | |ered*
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |   |
|                               |  Pad Length   | Next Header   | v   v
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------
|         Integrity Check Value-ICV   (variable)                |
~                                                               ~
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 1.  Top-Level Format of an ESP Packet


So the question is: Is your intent to provide a UDP encapsulation format for the already specified ESP protocol, or to provide an alternative encapsulation format to ESP?

--julien

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email