[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Modefg considered harmful
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ipsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Van Aken Dirk
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 2:51 AM
> To: 'ddukes@xxxxxxxxx'; Michael Richardson; ipsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Scott G. Kelly
> Subject: RE: Modefg considered harmful
> Hi Darren,
> Have you thought about following situation ?
> Following parameters are configured on the SmallIPSecGW:
> - LAN port (connected to the remote office Ethernetsegment):
> - DHCP Relay: enabled on this LAN port; giaddr= 22.214.171.124;
> DHCP Server=
> - IPSec policy: protect 126.96.36.199/24 and IKE peer= Large IPSecGW
> - IPSec policy: protect 0.0.0.0/0 and IKE peer= Large IPSecGW
> A PC is booting on the RemoteOfficeLAN, its broadcast DHCP
> requests arrive
> in the SmallIPSecGW and are converted via the DHCP relay into
> unicast DHCP
> request. Subsequently these request hit IPSec policy 188.8.131.52/24 or
> 0.0.0.0/0 and are tunneled to the remote LargeIPSecGW. The
> processes these DHCP request as ordinary unicast packets; all
> that is needed
> is policy rules. The DHCP server picks an IP address based on
> giaddr or more
> advanced criteria.
> Actually from the moment that the DHCP Relay makes the
> conversion everything is "standard" IPSec. Packets follow
> routes and obey
> policy rules; no IKECFG nor IPSec-DHCP specific functionality
> Appart from configuring policy rules there are no new skill
> that must be
> learned by the network administrator because in the
> CentralOfficeLAN he uses
> these same techniques to manage his/her network.
> If Remote Access VPN users are based on RFC3456 I have a DHCP
> solution for
> my complete network infrastructure more specific:
> - my centreal office LAN
> - my remote office VPN's
> - my remote access VPN users.
> In case of Remote Access VPN users based on IKECfg I have to train my
> network admin for this special case and address pools are
> located in two
> devices: the DHCP server and the Large VPNGW.
This is an implementation issue - there's no reason the VPN remote
pool must be separate from the dhcp pool.
> Best regards - Dirk
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Darren Dukes [mailto:ddukes@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: vrijdag 31 januari 2003 22:19
> > To: Michael Richardson; ipsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Scott G. Kelly
> > Subject: RE: Modefg considered harmful
> > I think any mature implementations that will be trying to
> use DHCP for
> > complete configuration of the ipsec client (beyond network
> > addresses, as is
> > possible with modecfg today) will need to implement their own
> > DHCP client
> > and server in order to include their user-specific ipsec-VPN
> > configuration.
> > So what we'll end up with is as follows.
> > OS-DHCP-client(optional) <-> ipsec-DHCP-client <TUNNEL>
> > SGW-DHCP-server
> > Reusing the OS DHCP client (if possible at all) will not give enough
> > flexibility.
> > Darren