A solution to this problem would be very helpful to draft-xu-risav, so I'm
definitely supportive of more work on this.

--Ben Schwartz

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:14 AM Steffen Klassert <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> we just published a new informal problem statement draft
> (draft-mrossberg-ipsecme-multiple-sequence-counters-00.txt)
> about ESP sequence number problems when using multiple CPU
> cores, QoS etc.
>
> At the last working group meeting in London, it was quite
> some interest to work on a re-design of ESP to make it fit
> to the multi-cpu case, QoS classes, HW offloads, multipath,
> multicast, etc.
>
> This is a first approach to describe the problems we have
> with the current ESP protocol.
>
> Comments welcome!
>
> Steffen
>
> ----- Forwarded message from [email protected] -----
>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 23:14:14 -0800
> From: [email protected]
> To: Michael Pfeiffer <[email protected]>, Michael Rossberg <
> [email protected]>, Steffen Klassert
>         <[email protected]>
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-mrossberg-ipsecme-multiple-sequence-counters-00.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D,
> draft-mrossberg-ipsecme-multiple-sequence-counters-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Steffen Klassert and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-mrossberg-ipsecme-multiple-sequence-counters
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Problem statements and uses cases for lightweight Child
> Security Associations
> Document date:  2023-02-27
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          15
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mrossberg-ipsecme-multiple-sequence-counters-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrossberg-ipsecme-multiple-sequence-counters/
> Html:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mrossberg-ipsecme-multiple-sequence-counters-00.html
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mrossberg-ipsecme-multiple-sequence-counters
>
>
> Abstract:
>    IKE SAs may have one or more child SAs that are used for traffic
>    protection.  This document collects arguments for (and against)
>    having more fine-grained sub-child-SAs.  They can be used to separate
>    data streams for various technical reasons but share the same
>    security properties and traffic selectors.  This shall allow for a
>    more flexible use of IPsec in multiple scenarios.
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to