[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: doi-07/interoperability questions
I don't believe we should delete either 2 or 4 but I didn't think that's
what Ben meant by "not support AH (tunnel) and ESP (transport)". I
assumed this meant "not support [these] together on the same packet.
You aren't seriously advocating the removal of AH-tunnel mode, are you?
I also don't see the use of adding 6.
--CJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric L. Wong [SMTP:ewong@zk3.dec.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 2:07 PM
To: Ben Rogers
Cc: Robert Moskowitz; ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: doi-07/interoperability questions
Sounds to me you are suggesting the following changes to the
arch spec
in section 4.5 Case 1.
]
] Transport Tunnel
] ----------------- ---------------------
] 1. [IP1][AH][upper] 4.
[IP2][AH][IP1][upper]
] 2. [IP1][ESP][upper] 5.
[IP2][ESP][IP1][upper]
] 3. [IP1][AH][ESP][upper]
]
Transport Tunnel
----------------- ---------------------
1. [IP1][AH][upper] (remove)4.
[IP2][AH][IP1][upper]
(remove)2. [IP1][ESP][upper] 5.
[IP2][ESP][IP1][upper]
3. [IP1][AH][ESP][upper] (add)6.
[IP2][AH][ESP][IP1][upper]
Is this correct?
I think it is ok to remove 4, it really doesn't buy you much.
I think we should keep 2. This new one for tunnel mode seem
to make sense. Now, should we restrict 6 to just gateway-to-
gateway?
/eric
Ben Rogers wrote:
>
> Yes. In fact, I was thinking specifically about gateway to
gateway
> configurations using both AH and ESP.
>
> Robert Moskowitz writes:
> > At 10:50 AM 3/10/98 -0500, Ben Rogers wrote:
> >
> > I believe you are talking about where the transforms all end
at the same
> > system not the case where the transport is end to end and
the tunnel is
> > gateway to gateway.
> >
> > >My other question centers on the use of Encapsulation Mode
attributes in
> > >combined (AND) proposal transforms. Namely, it seems
obvious that we
> > >should support the case where both are transport mode (Case
1.3 in
> > >section 4.5 of arch-sec), and not support the case where
both are tunnel
> > >(probably returning a BAD-PROPSAL-SYNTAX). However, I'm
not too clear
> > >as to whether I should support mixed proposals. My opinion
is that it
> > >makes sense to support AH (transport) and ESP (tunnel) with
the
> > >following encapsulation:
> > >
> > >[IP2][AH][ESP][IP1][upper]
> > >
> > >and to not support AH (tunnel) and ESP (transport). Does
anyone else
> > >have any feelings on this matter? Whatever we choose
probably ought to
> > >be added as clarifying text to [IPDOI].
> > >
> > >
> > >ben
> > >
> > >
> > Robert Moskowitz
> > ICSA
> > Security Interest EMail: rgm-sec@htt-consult.com
Follow-Ups: