[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
I have no doubt that you CAN do it in 3 messages without the security hole
(although it's a pain in the ass when you are doing PFS, which I tell people
not to use). Obviously, we (almost) all do this already.
It just seems to require more design effort to support the 3 message case.
In fact, compressing the number of messages in the phase 1 and phase 2
exchanges has caused nothing but grief all 'round if you ask me.
Andrew
-------------------------------------------
Upon closer inspection, I saw that the line
dividing black from white was in fact a shade
of grey. As I drew nearer still, the grey area
grew larger. And then I was enlightened.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sommerfeld@thunk.east.sun.com
> [mailto:sommerfeld@thunk.east.sun.com]On Behalf Of Bill Sommerfeld
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:51 PM
> To: andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com
> Cc: 'Scott Fanning'; Mike_Borella@3com.com; 'Dan Harkins';
> ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
>
>
> > - Dave Mason's 4 message QM instead of the commit bit fiasco.
>
> IMHO, both the commit bit and 4-message QM are unnecessary.
>
> Before you can set up SA's, each end has to reserve an SPI and then
> communicate it to the peer. We create a "larval" SA at this time as a
> placeholder, since the SA tables are where we check for uniqueness of
> SPI values.
>
> You can buffer a (limited number) of received packets in the larval
> SA, and then process them once the keying material is available. This
> is exactly like buffering packets while you wait for an arp reply..
> not strictly necessary for interoperability, but extremely useful in
> avoiding awkward pauses.
>
References: