Just to reiterate the concerns and issues I raised during IDR Thurs session discussion on using BGP signaling to achieve IPsec Tunnel configuration (draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec). Copy I2NSF WG because there is similar discussion for over a year. Copy IPsecme WG as the group has many experts on the IPsec configuration.
1. I2NSF WG has an on-going discussion on Controller facilitated IPsec configuration which has been discussed for over a year. Even though the I2NSF's IPsec Configuration is between Controller and devices, whereas the BGP signaling IPsec Configuration proposed by draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec is between peers, the configuration parameters to the devices are for the same purpose, therefore, should be aligned to avoid future conflicts to the industry. 2. When using IPsec Tunnel between two peers, usually they are separated by untrusted domain. If Router "A" is allowed to gets the IPsec tunnel configurations from peers across untrusted domain (instead of the today's practice of from administrators), then many issues come up, for example: How can a router "A" trust the Traffic Selection policy from a remote peer B? If the router "A" already has its Traffic Selection policy configured for a specific IPsec tunnel, but different from the Traffic Selection policy from remote peer B, which policy should Route A enforce for the IPsec Tunnel? If the router "A" doesn't have Traffic Selection policy specified, there are two remote nodes B & C signaling the "A" with different Traffic Selection policy, what should A do? 3. RFC5566 only specifies a simple indication of IPsec Encap, but doesn't do any of the IPsec configuration portion. As indicated by BESS WG chair, there are multiple drafts addressing IPsec in BESS, IDR, and WGs in Security Area, involved Chairs and ADs may need to agree where is the home for continuing the discussion to avoid future conflicts. Cheers, Linda Dunbar
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
