Re: Why IPsec is needed for iSCSI but might not be needed for RDDP/iWARP
Caitlin Bestler <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rddp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jun 9, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2004, at 11:32 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> >>> But you have not said anything about the need >>> for Privacy (Encryption). I thought that was also an important >>> consideration. >> >> Confidentiality (e.g., via encryption) is important for RDDP's placed >> data. >> It is not clear to me that the RDDP headers require confidentiality, >> although we may wind up with a requirement that STags be randomly >> generated >> in some fashion (and an optional means of providing "authentication" >> of the RDDP >> headers could meet this requirement). Again, this depends in some >> fashion >> on the buffer protection discussion outcome. > > Confidentiality is a ULP issue. Any rationale for use of IPsec > is Authentication, not privacy. > > I believe a fair summation would be that the RDDP Consumer must > be able to protect against unauthenticated updates of untagged > buffers it has taken delivery of. > > Oops, that's of *tagged* buffers -- I should be more careful when posting right after transatlantic flights.