Hi Steve

On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote:

> So please review this short document and send comments.

While the draft does a good job of describing use cases, and certain inadequate 
solutions, I think it's missing a description of why this is hard.

Even if we accept the solution of a star topology, where a satellite needs only 
have one single tunnel, there are really two choices:
 1. that each satellite know about all the protected networks of all the 
gateways in the configuration, or
 2. that satellites send all traffic to the "core" or "hub" gateways. This 
includes clear traffic (as in HTTP to facebook.com). This increased the load 
even more.

If you don't want #2, then the satellite still needs to know about every IP 
address whether it is protected by some gateway (and therefore needs to go in 
the tunnel), or not (and so packets with that destination should go out in the 
clear). Since the protected networks change, this requires that information to 
propagate throughout the network, and dynamic updates to SPD

If we don't want a star topology, the gateways or endpoints still need to know 
what is or is not encrypted. They also need to either know about all peers, or 
be able to find the peer and (securely) learn how it should authenticate. 
Either way, without a star topology, you need dynamic updates to PAD.

I think the draft should mention this.

Yoav

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

Reply via email to