Re: Labeled IPsec options
Paul Wouters <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipsec |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, Valery Smyslov wrote: >> I don't think that matters. Security labels are never optional but always >> mandatory. And it seems very unlikely to have a mix of child sa's with and >> without label. So they will all have a label, and then failing the IKE SA >> is fine, > > Do you want to say, that it's impossible to have two SGWs with multiple > networks behind them so, that traffic from some networks will have security > labels and traffic from the others won't have? I'm not saying it is impossible. I am saying it is not likely to be a real life configuration. If you classify network traffic with labels, your goal is to not have unlabeled traffic come in at all. You might have a label SEC_WHATEVER, but it still seems far more likely you would mark the traffic as having come from SGWx with some kind of LABELx to track the origin throughout your network. > If such a configuration is possible, then it's perfectly OK to have a mix > of labelled and non-labelled IPsec SAs created by one IKE SA. I'd argue the reverse. It would likely be better not to allow such an awful configuration :) Paul