|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: IPsec Usage QuestionVince, 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 |