|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decisionOk, First off with complexity comes a configuration nightmare... Second I can implement both a BITS and a BITW IPsec Transport and Tunnel mode... it really isn't all that hard. BITS implies that you are making OS changes, or at least changes under the TCP/UDP layer that is traditionally exposed to user applications, so I think most of the argument you are trying to make in your second paragraph doesn't hold much water for me. I would rather use Tunnel mode myself, however my reasons are that I can completely offload the implementation off of the host and target and let intermediate devices deal with security policies and such things... However most of the tone of the security draft is to require for at least one end if not both to be intimately aware of what is going on with security... Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of CAVANNA,VICENTE V (A-Roseville,ex1) Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 5:19 PM To: 'Ofer Biran'; ips@ece.cmu.edu Cc: CAVANNA,VICENTE V (A-Roseville,ex1); SHEEHY,DAVE (A-Americas,unix1) Subject: RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision It seems to me (who has not had the experience of implementing IpSec) that tunnel mode, even when implemented in the end host (rather than in a router), is a superset of transport mode whose only significant disadvantage is that tunnel mode requires more overhead in the form of the extra IP header. On the other hand, tunnel mode offers more flexibility in implementation as it is easier to implement in BITS and BITW implementations whereas transport mode can only be easily implemented when IPSec is implemented as part of the network layer i.e. integrated into the OS. The reason is that the IPSec headers are inserted AFTER the IP payload is constructed. This means that IPSec has to duplicate IP functionality because it has to recalculate the IP checksum and fragment the packet when necessary. I would support making tunnel mode the favored mode in iSCSI. IPSec compliance requires that transport mode be implemented but if iSCSI discourages it the implementation need not be as efficient as tunnel mode. Vince |-----Original Message----- |From: Ofer Biran [mailto:BIRAN@il.ibm.com] |Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:31 AM |To: ips@ece.cmu.edu |Subject: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision | | |I'd like to drive this open issue into group consensus. It seems to |me that the tendency was more toward making tunnel mode a MUST as iFCP |and FCIP did, mainly due the option of integrating an existing IPsec |chip/box with the iSCSI implementation offering. If we reach |this decision, |we may choose even not to mention transport mode (as MAY or some other |recommending text). | |There is an excellent analysis made by Bernard Aboba in Section |"5.1. Transport mode versus tunnel mode" of draft-ietf-ips-security-04 |( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips-security-04.txt ) |that can help us with this decision (also Section "5.2. NAT |traversal" is |relevant). | | Regards, | Ofer | |Ofer Biran |Storage and Systems Technology |IBM Research Lab in Haifa |biran@il.ibm.com 972-4-8296253 |
Home Last updated: Fri Nov 02 13:17:33 2001 7534 messages in chronological order |