Hi, Syed Ajim.

In future please expand acronyms, because while it's safe to assume that anyone 
reading this list knows what an SA is, not all of us are proficient in IPv6 
terminology.

Having said that, policies usually have exceptions for protocols, that need to 
run in the clear. IKE is an example of such a protocol. 

Also, when IPsec is between two hosts that are not on the same subnet, you 
don't have a problem - since your local network is not in the policy, all the 
neighbor discovery/solicitation/advertisement are in the clear anyway.

You do have a problem when your IPsec peer is on the same subnet. In that case, 
you need to have an exception in your policy, that makes these protocols 
non-protected. Alternatively, you can get the peer address from a third party 
(such as DNS), and use that for IKE, ignoring the IPv6 way of doing discovery. 
(IKE still needs an exception) Then the whole neighbor protocols will run over 
IPsec like they should.  This might require some messing around with the IPv6 
stack.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Syed 
Ajim Hussain
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:41 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] IKE6 Negitaion when Peer Address ND not yet started.

Hi All

   IPv6 Peer1 ------------------ IPv6 Peer 2
     
   I have one question, for IKE IPv6 Solution.   
   Assume in  IPsec6 Policy I have configure Source IPv6 Address and 
   Destination IPv6 Address as Traffic selector, now IPSEC SA is not yet 
   establish.    
   When IKE Triggers, SA Negotiation and that time for peer address, ND not 
   yet done.
    
   In this condition, Initiator starts NS to resolve Peer Address,   
   Other end replies with NA, which is a Uncast packet   Now this unicast 
   packet is comes under IPsec6 policy, So Peer2 can not send it un-
   encrypted, and for encryption SA is not yet ready. 

   Even if Peer2 sends un-encrypted packets , this NA packet may drop in 
   Peer1, as it matches IPsec Policy and still packet is un-encrypted. 

   So, Is there any standard to handle such scenario? Else we need to 
   update standard to Support IPSEC6/IKE6.  

With Regards
Syed Ajim
    

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to