Message-Id: <20070203085225.E309.SHINTA@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date:	Sat, 03 Feb 2007 09:28:17 +0900
From:	Shinta Sugimoto <shinta@....wide.ad.jp>
To:	hadi@...erus.ca
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@...nt6.net>,
	Masahide Nakamura <nakam@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	usagi-core@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][XFRM][0/5] extension for XFRM databases

Hello Jamal,

Thank you for your feedback. Please find my comments inline.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:35:51 -0500
jamal <hadi@...erus.ca> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 20:25 +0900, Shinta Sugimoto wrote:
> 
> > In the design phase, we sorted out the requirements as below:
> > 
> > (1) Overhead of userland <-> kernel interaction message exchange
> >     should be kept minimum.
> > (2) There should not be too much requirement for user application
> >     to leverage the feature (dynamic update of endpoint).  More
> >     specifically, we don't want to expect the user application to
> >     have detailed information of IPsec security association
> >     (i.e. SPI).
> > (3) There should not be negative impact on the existing software
> >     which is based on PF_KEYv2 (RFC2367).
> > 
> > Firstly, if we use the existing messages for updating SPD and SAD,
> > we simply need 2 pairs of request/response exchange between the
> > userland and kernel for updating a single endpoint.  This is not
> > ideal from the perspective of (1).
> 
> Ok, if i understand you correctly:
> Instead of having from userland one message for updating SAD and another
> for updating SPD, you have a single message which updates both?

Yes.  A XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE message can update an SPD entry and associated
SAD entries (if any) at a time.

> 
> > Secondly, we need to be careful about updating the endpoint address
> > because it may invoke unexpected signaling (ACQUIRE) to the user
> > application.  Imagine you update SPD and SAD sequentially while there
> > is an outbound flow going on.  The kernel may end up with triggering
> > the userland application by unexpected ACQUIRE message due to the
> > absence of SAD entry.  In order to avoid this problem, we need a sort
> > of atomic update of SPD and SAD entries.  XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE is designed
> > and implemented in a way that unexpected ACQUIRE would never occur.
> > 
> 
> Ok, this is sensible - it could be achieved with two multipart messages
> in netlink; but a single message is better.
> 
> > Thirdly, we also need to pay attention to the PF_KEYv2 spec.
> > XFRM_MSG_UPDSA is derived from SADB_UPDATE message in PF_KEYv2.
> > According to the spec, the semantics of SADB_UPDATE is to add a new
> > security association with the information provided by previous
> > SADB_GETSPI message.  We think it's not a good idea to overload
> > the semantics of SADB_UPDATE message because it may confuse legacy
> > software from the perspective of (3).  Moreover, caller of
> > SADB_UPDATE should specify SPI, source address, and destination
> > address, which is a bit problematic from the perspective of (2).
> > 
> 
> 
> We really dont have this issue with xfrm side.
> I think that PF_KEYv2 is just a dinosaur that needs to be extinct.
> Continuing to bandaid around it is converting into a mammoth.
> I found your first two explanation more reasonable, but not this one.
> 
> > From the above reasons, we decided to extend XFRM/PF_KEYv2 for
> > dynamic update of the endpoint.  Please note that the mechanism is
> > useful not only for Mobile IPv6 but also for Mobile VPN scenario.
> > 
> 
> Can you explain what you mean by this last part? There are many ways to
> achieve mobile VPN - is the end client aware?

By "Mobile VPN", I meant a VPN scenario where clients roam around
subnets and continue changing its attachment point to the Internet
(aka roadwarrior).  In such case, both client and SGW need to update
endpoint address of the security association.  When the endpoint address
of client side is updated, instead of re-establishing the security
association from scratch, the client may inform the SGW of its new
endpoint address.  This is what MOBIKE (RFC4555) does.  So, just like
in the case of Mobile IPv6, endpoint address management of IPsec
databases is necessary and XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE message can be used.

> 
> > Does this make sense?
> 
> Yes, I think I see the logic behind your design. To be 100% convinced,
> depends if your answer to the first question i asked is "yes".

Ok, thanks.


Regards,
Shinta

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists