[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <81646030-00b9-10ad-abed-a7a78f0c511e@nohats.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 11:33:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@...ats.ca>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, borisp@...dia.com, gal@...dia.com, cratiu@...dia.com,
rrameshbabu@...dia.com, tariqt@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 00/15] add basic PSP encryption for TCP
connections
On Tue, 28 May 2024, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> One point about why PSP is that the exact protocol and packet format
> is already in use and supported by hardware.
Using mostly the IPsec hw code? :)
> It makes sense to work to get to an IETF standard protocol that
> captures the same benefits. But that is independent from enabling what
> is already implemented.
How many different packet encryption methods should the linux kernel
have? There are good reasons to go through standard bodies. Doing your
own thing and then saying "but we did it already" to me does not feel
like a strong argument. That's how we got wireguard with all of its
issues of being written for a single use case, and now being unfit for
generic use cases.
Going through standards organizations also gains you interoperability
with non-linux (hardware) vendors, again reducing the number of
different mostly similar schemes that need to be supported and
maintained for years or decades.
Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists