[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Using config mode together with extended authentication



In the scenario you mention the CP is sent before SAi2 and SAr2.  So the
initiator sends CP(CFG_REQUEST) in the first IKE_AUTH exchange and the
responder sends CP(CFG_REPLY) in the last IKE_AUTH exchange.  Using the EAP
example from the IKEv2-05 draft and inserting CP it would look like this...

Initiator                          Responder
-----------                        -----------
HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni         -->
                           <--    HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ]
HDR, SK {IDi, [CERTREQ,] [IDr,]
         [CP], SAi2, TSi, TSr}   -->
                           <--    HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT,] AUTH,
                                           EAP }
HDR, SK {EAP, [AUTH] }     -->
                           <--    HDR, SK {EAP, [AUTH],
                                           [CP], SAr2, TSi, TSr }


Charlie, could you add the CP payloads to the example for EAP so this is
clearer?

Darren



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]On Behalf Of Geoffrey Huang
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:08 PM
> To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Using config mode together with extended authentication
>
>
> I've looked over the sections regarding EAP/XAuth and Config mode in
> IKEv2-05, and there are packet descriptions in each section describing
> what IKE looks like if either one is used.  But what happens if you do
> the cfg request and EAP?  Based on the EAP description, the responder
> sends an EAP request in the 4th message, starting off an EAP exchange.
>
> But the Cfg Request description says that the initiator sends a CP
> payload before the SAi2 payload.  Does this mean that if we do both CP
> and EAP it looks like:
>
> INIT             RESPO
> msg1   ---->
>        <----     msg2
> msg3+CP ---->
>        <----     msg4+EAP
> EAP    ---->
>        <----     CP reply, etc.
>
> Maybe it's described in the document, and I just missed it.
>
> -g
>