On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 12:06 AM Antony Antony <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 13:24:51 +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 01, 2026 at 06:13:17AM +0000, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL 
> > wrote:
> > > >> Do you remember why consensus wasn't reached? Unless there's a good
> > > >> reason, I would like to remove support for AH from Linux.
> > > >
> > > > The people thought they had good reasons.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not a good argument - nobody (normally) argues believing his reasons are 
> > > bad. The real reasons for AH existence have died long ago - and I’ve been 
> > > there when AH was initially created, so yes I do know.
> > >
> > >
> > > > There were various use cases and saving bytes compared to esp-null 
> > > > mattered.
> > >
> > > No valid use cases now, AFAIK - and while saving bytes might make some 
> > > sense, I’d say - not in this case.
> >
> > Some people still use it because it authenticates the constant
> > fields of the outer IP header, this can't be done with ESP.
>
> UEC, TSS has some ideas to authenticate parts of IP headers, namely
> source address and destination address.

It seems like it would be sufficient to include the addresses in a
security association lookup.

> So I think there is interest in AH like ideas not that fit most use cases,
> while Google PSP use AES GMAC to authenticate payload.
>
> Personally I would also like to authenticate IPv6 "Flow Label" field along 
> with
> src and dst addresses. This field can used as label such CPU ID or Q id.

Unlikely that could be standardized. Flow label is modifiable field (RFC6437).
>
> Tom: I wonder adding text about AES GMAC would be useful?
> I propose text along the lines.
>
> 1.1.4 Use of NULL Encryption with Authentication
>
> An alternative to using the Authentication Header (AH) with ESP is to
> use ESP with NULL encryption and authentication enabled, e.g. when AEAD
> algorithms are used, this can be achieved with suites such as AES-GMAC
> [[RFC4543]], which provide integrity protection without confidentiality to
> IPsec payload.
>
> This approach preserves ESP processing semantics while offering
> authentication protection only to the payload, this is only partial AH.
> It may be useful for operational purposes such as diagnostics or
> telemetry using intermediate router, where end-to-end payload
> integerity is desired.  Existing mechanisms such as PSP have
> already incorporated this model.

Thanks, will add the text.

Tom

>
> >
> > > >> If no one’s using AH then the code is nothing more than a liability and
> > > >> maintenance headache. Granted, we don't need formal deprecation of AH
> > > >> to do that, but I would prefer to keep Linux and IETF on the same page.
> > >
> > > And it’s about time to turn that page over. 😉
> >
> > I'd be more than happy to get rid of AH in the Linux Kernel, and an
> > official deprecation by the IETF would help a lot.
>
> yes.  +1
>
> -antony

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to