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

Re: Phase 1 Re-keying Implementation Identification

Wouldn't be simpler to eliminate "continious" model instead of creating
additional protocol extensions to support it.
What are advantages of "continious" model vs. "dangling"?

Tim Jenkins wrote:

> Greetings,
> At the 46th IETF last week, I again presented the re-keying document. In
> that presentation and in the re-keying document, I described two methods of
> phase 1 re-keying.
> One of these I called "phase 2 SA dangling". In this method, an
> implementation does not necessarily keep any valid phase 1 SAs alive while
> there are phased 2 SAs between it and another peer. In other words, the
> phase 2 SAs may "dangle" without the existence of a control channel.
> The other method is what I called the "continuous channel" method. In this
> method, an implementation always keeps at least one phase 1 SA up between
> itself and a peer when there are any phase 2 SAs up between them. If, for
> any reason, there are no phase 1 SAs between the peers, all phase 2 SAs
> would be torn down as well.
> However, this leads to a potential interoperability issue between the two
> methods, since a continuous channel implementation would delete phase 2 SAs
> when a dangling phase 2 SA peer deletes the phase 1 SA between them.
> To correct this, a continuous channel implementation could choose to not
> delete phase 2 SAs when it received a delete notification for the only phase
> 1 SA that exists.
> However, this leads to problems if the peer is also a continuous channel
> model. Note that this can occur since delete notifications for all SAs are
> both optional and send without acknowledgement over UDP.
> So, I asked if there was interest in allowing vendors to be able to
> determine if the peer is also a continuous channel model.
> Obviously, if a vendor sends a vendor ID payload, the implementation can
> determine that it is talking to itself, and thus determine which phase 1
> re-keying model it uses.
> So: Is there any interest in this? How many vendors are using the continuous
> channel model?
> Please note that this has absolutely no effect on dangling phase 2 SA
> implementations. It has already been stated that continuous channel model
> implementation should be dangling phase 2 SA implementation aware if they
> cannot determine the nature of the peer implementation.
> If there is, what method would be suggested?
> (One potential method is the exchange of a specific vendor ID, but this goes
> against the intent of the vendor ID payload. Unfortunately, there doesn't
> seem to be a feature negotiation capability in IKE.)
> Thanks,
> Tim
> ---
> Tim Jenkins                       TimeStep Corporation
> tjenkins@timestep.com          http://www.timestep.com
> (613) 599-3610 x4304               Fax: (613) 599-3617

Bronislav Kavsan
IRE Secure Solutions, Inc.
100 Conifer Hill Drive  Suite 513
Danvers, MA  01923
voice: 978-539-4816