Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process
Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 28 January 2009 17:59 UTC
Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4D828C17B; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:59:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBCD28C130 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:59:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 G5g6twKawZTb for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AFB228C17B for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [75.215.232.200] (200.sub-75-215-232.myvzw.com [75.215.232.200]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0SHwKIp022961; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:58:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49809CBC.5080603@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:58:20 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
References: <7.1.0.9.2.20081219010400.02bfd3d8@gmail.com> <496d9941.18038e0a.5558.ffffd3a6@mx.google.com> <497F7DDC.70309@isi.edu> <20090128162756.3799450822@romeo.rtfm.com> <49808E94.8050107@isi.edu> <20090128175345.C434E50822@romeo.rtfm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090128175345.C434E50822@romeo.rtfm.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>, skonduru@juniper.net
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric (et al.), Eric Rescorla wrote: > At Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:57:56 -0800, > Joe Touch wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> Eric Rescorla wrote: >>> At Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:20 -0800, >>> Joe Touch wrote: >>>> I'll kick off discussion on this point on the list. >>>> >>>> IMO, this mechanism is not viable for TCP-AO; it requires generating >>>> (and consuming) TCP segments that a native TCP would not generate. I was >>>> under the assumption that our design space was as close to TCP MD5 as >>>> possible, i.e., augment existing segments with a new option, but neither >>>> generate nor consume new segments. >>> I think it's important to separate two issues: >>> >>> 1. How can an implementation decide when it's safe to use a newly installed >>> key? >>> 2. How can an implementation help a peer implementation make that decision. >>> >>> I think it's pretty clear that the most natural way to answer question >>> (1) is "when you see a segment protected with that key". Unfortunately, >>> this creates a deadlock problem since both sides are waiting for the >>> other side to use the key. Thus, we need a combination of two >>> methods: >>> >>> 1. If a node has two keys, OLD and NEW, as soon as it sees a segment >>> from the peer protected with NEW, it starts sending with NEW. >>> 2. If a node has two keys, OLD and NEW, and it's still using OLD >>> it occasionally experimentally sends a segment with NEW (probing). >> I've already shown a way to achieve this without requiring the use of >> the NEW key, i.e., that used two KeyIDs with the OLD key, using the >> change in the KeyID to inform the endpoints. I've also described in that >> email a way to achieve this using the current API, without asking TCP-AO >> to generate new packets or to do anything conditional _inside_ TCP-AO; >> this can (and, IMO, should) all be accomplished with an external >> mechanism, with __no__ impact on the stack. > > I read your mechanism, but I'm not sure it works. > > The basic unit of operation here isn't keys but key-ids. It's true that > in your example key-id 6 refers to the same key as key-id 5, but that's > not something that the stack should be observing. The stack doesn't observe it; the stack reports it if asked to an external process. > In other words, > if you get a packet with key-id 6 and you only have key-id 5, you should > reject it, not try the key corresponding to key-id 5, so we've reduced > this to a previously unsolved problem. I've reduced the problem to a configuration solution, not a TCP-level protocol mechanism. If you remove aspects of the solution (i.e., if you don't install a key with two keyIDs), then the solution obviously won't work. That doesn't reintroduce the unsolved problem; it reverts to the unsolved problem when not solved (which is a tautology). > If your point is that at the time I install key-id 5 I also install a > dummy key-id 6, and use that purely for signalling, I agree that that > would work, but it strikes me as extremely kludgy. It allows side A to tell side B when side A has a new key installed, without causing any packets to fall on the floor on side B (note that retransmissions, if received, could open the congestion window inappropriately). The mechanism I proposed achieved with no modifications to the TCP stack. The other mechanisms suggested all have the property of also using the KeyID value as a signal. The only downside of the mechanism I proposed is that is inefficient in the use of the KeyID space - however, the space is large enough that this isn't an issue. > There's no natural > connection between the switch from 5-6 and the switch from 5-7. Why should there be? IMO, it's up to the endpoints to decide how and when to switch keys; key change coordination needs to be _enabled_ by TCP-AO, but not provided by it. IMO, that's a KMS issue - whether automated at the endpoints, or via a protocol. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmAnLwACgkQE5f5cImnZrsDggCeLX8Sy6YORgG4D0kz+usylDep zDYAnR8EMoBNAtrXx90OJW1Z1O0lMljF =Kqm5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Gregory M. Lebovitz
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Alfred Hönes
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Brian Weis
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Brian Weis
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Caitlin Bestler
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Ron Bonica
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO: Text for New_Key Process Eric Rescorla