Re: Labeled IPsec options

Paul Wouters <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ipsec
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, Hu, Jun (Nokia - US/Mountain View) wrote:

>> If you select multiple TS's these all become part of one Child SA. So I think the granularity of the label does not change between the solutions?
>
> [Hu Jun] if we agree that label is per CHILD_SA, then with option 1 or 2, there is possibility for invalid TS combination, following are some examples of invalid TS:
> - with option-1: There are two TS in TSi, first TS contains label-1, 2nd TS contains label-2

This issue is similar to network ranges though. Say you want to have:
10.0.1.0/24 <-> 192.168.0.0/16
10.0.2.0/24 <-> 172.16.100.0/24

Then you can also not have a TSi containing 10.0.1.0/24, 10.0.2.0/24 and
a TSr containing 192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.100.0/24

With 10.0.1.0/24+SEC_LABEL1 and 10.0.1.0/24+SEC_LABEL2 youl have a
similar issue, that is you would need to use a seperate CREATE_CHILD_SA
to prevent the mixup of TS elements.

> - with option-2: TSi contains label-1, while TSr contains a different label-2

Yes, see above.

> With option-3/4 there is no such concern

Since the notify or new payload type would be the same for all other TS
parts, you do have the same problem. You also need a different CREATE_CHILD_SA
negotiation to specify the different label. So I don't think what you
describe is a new issue only affecting some of the solution options. All
solutions need a similar workaround to prevent the mixup.

Paul
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.