SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: IPsec Usage Question



    Vince,
    
    I meant in case "that's their only IPsec protection",
    i.e., you can combine your iSCSI with IPsec gateway/device and
    the box would be compliant. The 2-site tunnel scenario doesn't
    indicate if they are compliant or not - it's simply not relevant, and
    doesn't contribute to their compliance.
    
      Regards,
          Ofer
    
    
    
    Ofer Biran
    Storage and Systems Technology
    IBM Research Lab in Haifa
    biran@il.ibm.com  972-4-8296253
    
    
    "CAVANNA,VICENTE V (A-Roseville,ex1)" <vince_cavanna@agilent.com> on
    05/02/2002 19:40:07
    
    To:   Ofer Biran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
    cc:   Black_David@emc.com, marjorie_krueger@hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu, Paul
          Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>
    Subject:  RE: IPsec Usage Question
    
    
    
    Hi Ofer
    
    |
    |>This example MUST work.  So you cannot require inner == outer
    |>address, because that translates into saying that IP Storage cannot be
    |>protected by a site to site IPsec tunnel.
    |
    |This is not Kansas any more... The iSCSI devices on both sites
    |(assuming
    |that's their only IPsec protection) are not iSCSI compliant. This
    |definitely
    |doesn't cover the IPsec protection mandated by iSCSI.
    |
    |  Regards,
    |    Ofer
    
    Could you elaborate on this. Why would such devices be in violation of the
    iSCSI spec?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Vince
    
    |-----Original Message-----
    |From: Ofer Biran [mailto:BIRAN@il.ibm.com]
    |Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:30 PM
    |To: Paul Koning
    |Cc: Black_David@emc.com; marjorie_krueger@hp.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
    |Subject: RE: IPsec Usage Question
    |
    |
    |
    |Paul,
    |
    |>This example MUST work.  So you cannot require inner == outer
    |>address, because that translates into saying that IP Storage cannot be
    |>protected by a site to site IPsec tunnel.
    |
    |This is not Kansas any more... The iSCSI devices on both sites
    |(assuming
    |that's their only IPsec protection) are not iSCSI compliant. This
    |definitely
    |doesn't cover the IPsec protection mandated by iSCSI.
    |
    |  Regards,
    |    Ofer
    |
    |
    |Ofer Biran
    |Storage and Systems Technology
    |IBM Research Lab in Haifa
    |biran@il.ibm.com  972-4-8296253
    |
    |
    |Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>@ece.cmu.edu on 05/02/2002 00:17:54
    |
    |Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    |
    |
    |To:   Black_David@emc.com
    |cc:   marjorie_krueger@hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
    |Subject:  RE: IPsec Usage Question
    |
    |
    |
    |>>>>> "BlackG" == Black David <Black_David@emc.com> writes:
    |
    | BlackG> AFAIK, IPsec has no standard or widely deployed mechanism for
    | BlackG> handling gateway discovery or address association
    | BlackG> dynamically.
    |
    |True.
    |
    |But let's consider a very common IPsec deployment scenario.  I think
    |this is actually the predominant one, but let's not argue about that;
    |it certainly is quite common.
    |
    |Scenario: two sites, each with an IPsec gateway, and an IPsec tunnel
    |set up between the two sites.  All traffic between the two sites goes
    |through the tunnel.  (This is the classic IPsec based VPN scenario.)
    |
    |The way this is handled is simply by configuring the routing tables on
    |the two IPsec gateways to forward to the other site through the
    |tunnel.  As far as the other nodes on the two sites is concerned, the
    |other site is simply reachable via ordinary IP mechanisms, and the
    |existence of the tunnel, or the addresses used in the outer headers,
    |are none of its concern.  And of course the IP addresses of the inner
    |header cannot possibly equal those of the outer header in this
    |example.
    |
    |This example MUST work.  So you cannot require inner == outer
    |address, because that translates into saying that IP Storage cannot be
    |protected by a site to site IPsec tunnel.
    |
    |Now for a different case: if you use tunnel mode to protect traffic
    |for a single node (a common case for laptops, so this is often called
    |the "road warrior" case) then it may well be useful to allow inner ==
    |outer.  Some road warrior OS types will want that, others don't care
    |so much, so it can be a simplifying approach.  I have no objection at
    |all to saying that inner == outer is useful, and for that matter I can
    |go along with saying inner == outer should be supported.  But, either
    |way, inner != outer must be supported.
    |
    |     paul
    |
    |
    |
    |
    
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Tue Feb 05 19:18:00 2002
8656 messages in chronological order