[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180612075610.2000-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:56:07 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>,
Antony Antony <antony@...nome.org>,
Benedict Wong <benedictwong@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
"Shannon Nelson" <shannon.nelson@...cle.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC v2 ipsec-next 0/3] Virtual xfrm interfaces
This patchset introduces new virtual xfrm interfaces.
The design of virtual xfrm interfaces interfaces was
discussed at the Linux IPsec workshop 2018. This patchset
implements these interfaces as the IPsec userspace and
kernel developers agreed. The purpose of these interfaces
is to overcome the design limitations that the existing
VTI devices have.
The main limitations that we see with the current VTI are the
following:
- VTI interfaces are L3 tunnels with configurable endpoints.
For xfrm, the tunnel endpoint are already determined by the SA.
So the VTI tunnel endpoints must be either the same as on the
SA or wildcards. In case VTI tunnel endpoints are same as on
the SA, we get a one to one correlation between the SA and
the tunnel. So each SA needs its own tunnel interface.
On the other hand, we can have only one VTI tunnel with
wildcard src/dst tunnel endpoints in the system because the
lookup is based on the tunnel endpoints. The existing tunnel
lookup won't work with multiple tunnels with wildcard
tunnel endpoints. Some usecases require more than on
VTI tunnel of this type, for example if somebody has multiple
namespaces and every namespace requires such a VTI.
- VTI needs separate interfaces for IPv4 and IPv6 tunnels.
So when routing to a VTI, we have to know to which address
family this traffic class is going to be encapsulated.
This is a lmitation because it makes routing more complex
and it is not always possible to know what happens behind the
VTI, e.g. when the VTI is move to some namespace.
- VTI works just with tunnel mode SAs. We need generic interfaces
that ensures transfomation, regardless of the xfrm mode and
the encapsulated address family.
- VTI is configured with a combination GRE keys and xfrm marks.
With this we have to deal with some extra cases in the generic
tunnel lookup because the GRE keys on the VTI are actually
not GRE keys, the GRE keys were just reused for something else.
All extensions to the VTI interfaces would require to add
even more complexity to the generic tunnel lookup.
To overcome this, we started with the following design goal:
- It should be possible to tunnel IPv4 and IPv6 through the same
interface.
- No limitation on xfrm mode (tunnel, transport and beet).
- Should be a generic virtual interface that ensures IPsec
transformation, no need to know what happens behind the
interface.
- Interfaces should be configured with a new key that must match a
new policy/SA lookup key.
- The lookup logic should stay in the xfrm codebase, no need to
change or extend generic routing and tunnel lookups.
- Should be possible to use IPsec hardware offloads of the underlying
interface.
Changes from v1:
- Document the limitations of VTI interfaces and the design of
the new xfrm interfaces more explicit in the commit messages.
- No code changes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists