Hi Ron, > Both good points. So, it appears that we have the following choices: > > - leverage IKE for exchanging probes and acks (But risk sending probes and > acks over a different path than > encrypted data) > - send probes and acks in-band. Try UDP probes first. If that doesn't work, > try TCP probes.
What about ICMP-only SAs (yeah, it's weird, but possible)? > Which do you think is better? Both don't look ideal. I slightly prefer the former, as it looks simpler to implement (at least for me), but the issue with different paths can outweigh all. One potential solution to this issue would be to always use UDP encapsulation, but I'm not sure we may impose such a requirement... Your opinion? Regards, Valery. > Ron > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.i...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:24 AM > > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; 'Michael Richardson' > > <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> > > Cc: ipsec@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [IPsec] PLMTUD probes for IPsec > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > In the first version of this draft, we leveraged IKE to exchange > > > messages. And provided with a good enough reason, we might go back to > > that position! > > > > > > We moved away from IKE for the following reasons: > > > > > > - The path between the encrypting and decrypting nodes might include > > > ECMP. If so, IKE messages might take a different path than actual > > > encrypted data > > > > That's a valid concern. The only time when you can be sure that the paths > > are > > the same is when NAT traversal is in use (either because some NAT is in > > between, or you force it on the peers). > > > > > - The current method provides the same level of protection as IKE and > > > possibly better performance > > > - The current doesn't require changes to IKE > > > > True. But with your current proposal some changes to the IPSec in kernel are > > needed too (or you need to have standalone client and server applications to > > exchange probes). > > Not sure what is easier. > > > > > Are these reasonable assumptions. If not, we would be happy to return to > > the IKE solution. > > > > I think one problem with the suggested approach is that the tunnel selectors > > might not allow sending packets over UDP. Consider you have "narrow" ESP > > SA that only allows TCP packets to go through and drops all UDP. In this > > case > > your approach won't work, or some additional heuristics would be needed. > > > > Regards, > > Valery. > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 11:09 AM > > > > To: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.i...@gmail.com> > > > > Cc: ipsec@ietf.org; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > > > > Subject: Re: [IPsec] PLMTUD probes for IPsec > > > > > > > > > > > > Valery Smyslov <smyslov.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > Dynamic IPsec PMTU PLPMTUD - Shibu Piriyath, Ron Bonica > > > > >> > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.iet > > > > f.org_meeting_101_materials_slides-2D101- > > 2D&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr > > > > 6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl- > > AWF2EfpHcA > > > > > > wrDThKP8&m=QoSMQregi2cS6qaSUZ1ttnd_izUvFwYYoIA80K3xgI8&s=YXPwE > > w5OTeG > > > > sOP8sS0P463jWQ-OhKpYEK9LUnAWcQgA&e= > > > > ipsecme-packetization-layer-path-mtu- > > > > >> discovery-01 > > > > >> > > > > >> > Problem: IPsec Tunnel has an PMTU as any other tunnel. > > > > >> > Solution in Transport Area: Inband Path discovery > > > > >> > > > > >> I spoke to Ron afterwards, and I'm very enthusiatic about > > > > getting PLPMTUD > > > > >> widely deployed. We didn't get to this slides, so we didn't > > > > figure > > > > >> out what he needs. Slides talk about an IP-level probe that IPsec > > > > >> encapsulators can use to get estimate for tunnel inner MTU. > > > > > > > > > Why IKE messages cannot be used for this purpose? > > > > > > > > I think that possibly it can, and this is the kind of discussion that > > > > I think we should have. The advantage of doing that is that it > > > > requires > > > > no new code on the responder! That's a big win for deploying. > > > > It means that this can be done unilaterally, no new specification, > > > > just implementation advice. > > > > > > > > The slight implementation challenge is making sure that the IKE > > > > traffic is going along the same path as the ESP traffic. I'd like > > > > to hear from Ron about whether this is an issue. > > > > > > > > I also thought about using having some plpmtud on each end make a > > > > TCP connection *within* the tunnel and use the already defined plpmtu > > for TCP. > > > > That might be really easy for systems without user/kernel divisions > > > > (some router kernels). It would require some notifications to > > > > indicate that the responder has a TCP port open. And of course, the > > > > traffic would have to fit into the tunnel as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Valery. > > > > > > > > >> But, if we can get PLMTUD deployed for all traffic, then the > > > > end-nodes can > > > > >> do appropriate PMTU probing and can figure out what the inner > > MTU is. > > > > >> i.e. just get everyone to enable plpmtu (4821). It's a knob on > > > > most > > > > >> systems, which has been left in the off state because of lack > > > > of evidence > > > > >> that it isn't harmful. > > > > >> > > > > >> There seems to be some sticking points among the high-speed > > > > about > > > > CDNs: > > > > >> they hate all PMTUD as it screws with tx scheduling into > > > > hardware. > > > > >> (TCP segment offload issues) > > > > >> > > > > >> So they just use 1280 is what I was told. That's good for > > > > the network, but > > > > >> it removes them as strong allies for getting PLPMTUD enabled > > > > by default > > > > >> everywhere. It would be nice if we could get a BCP out of them. > > Such > > > > >> BCP could also bless PLPMTUD for everyone else. I was pushing > > > > for > > this > > > > >> with RFC8200/STD86 but there was insufficient evidence of > > > > deployment. > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman > > > > Software Works > > > > >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software > > Works > > > > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec