|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decisionOk, I have implemented IPsec (both Transport & Tunnel) as a Win32 Intermediate Driver for Win 9x/NT 4 (We didn't need it in W2K because it is implemented there all ready). I have also implemented it as a set of Linux Netfilter rules for the 2.4 kernel... I would consider both of these BITS implementations and I consider these as OS modifications (all though depending on if you consider the drivers as a part of the OS they may not be) There are a few optimizations that you can make if you actually own the TCP stack. 1) Setting the MTU for the connection to take out the size of the IPsec overhead, however you can use ICMP error messages from the IPsec layer to do the same thing. 2) Handling TCP timeouts while a SA is negotiated. My implementation would drop the first TCP/SYN packet while the negotiation was going on, then send the second packet that comes down, usually after the negotiation went through... The other option was to send the TCP/SYN packet in the clear... BITW implementations have many of the same things to do, the only difference is that it happens after it goes through Ethernet processing... I have heard of an implementation that went through a Linux TUN(???) driver to pass the full Ethernet packet up to user space to have the IPsec processing done on it before passing back down as a raw Ethernet packet to go out eth0... Then there are external gateways that we are all familiar with... I am interested in external gateways mainly because they are 1) Purchasable off of the shelf 2) Don't have integration requirements - just tell the customer to buy two and get them to work, we run over it Bill -----Original Message----- From: CAVANNA,VICENTE V (A-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:vince_cavanna@agilent.com] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:29 AM To: 'Bill Strahm' Cc: SHEEHY,DAVE (A-Americas,unix1); CAVANNA,VICENTE V (A-Roseville,ex1); 'Ofer Biran'; ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision Good Morning Bill, To me, a BITS implementation of IPSec does not require changes to the OS (with its built-in network stack) and is in fact useful when such changes are not feasible. In BITS, I assume IPSec is implemented as a shim between the network and data link layer. I thought, from reading the literature, that this was a conventional definition of BITS. If you are allowed to make changes to the network stack when adding IPSec functionality then, as I noted in my original memo, I consider transport mode to be feasible . If I understand you correctly then, what you really favor is a BITW implementation which I understand to be essentially an external crypto device. I would like to be able to use that too, but only provisionally, as a BITW implementation will eventually (as iSCSI matures) be considered too expensive and IPSec will have to be incorporated more tightly into the network stack. Vince -----Original Message----- From: Bill Strahm [mailto:bill@Sanera.net] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 10:18 PM To: CAVANNA,VICENTE V (A-Roseville,ex1); 'Ofer Biran'; ips@ece.cmu.edu Cc: SHEEHY,DAVE (A-Americas,unix1) Subject: RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision Ok, 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: Sun Nov 04 07:17:49 2001 7546 messages in chronological order |