Hannes Tschofenig writes: > On 08/28/2015 10:25 AM, Pablo Puñal Pereira wrote: > > Hi Hannes, Malisa, all, > > > > Right now I'm doing the performance analysis (in time and power > > consumption) of IPsec, also in the context of IEEE802.15.4. > > Why are you focusing your analysis on IPsec? Are you analysis IPsec > AH/ESP or also IKEv2? > > How does your test setup look like? How does IEEE 802.15.4 fit into this > analysis? Wouldn't it be sufficient to focus on the performance of > cryptographic algorithms?
IEEE 802.15.9 will be adding IKEv2 as one of the key management protocols for IEEE 820.15.4, so that IKEv2 can be used to generate the link keys for the network. In that setup it would be useful to do the end to end security using IKEv2 + IPsec. Doing full protocol performance analysis is more interesting than just comparing cryptographic algorithms. For example the bit rates in the 802.15.4 are so slow, that the cryptographic performance penalty might not even be noticiable, but on the other hand power consumption might be. > The > > configuration is: IKE negotiation: AES128-CTR, AES-XCBC, SHA1, > > ECP192 ESP encryption: AES128-CTR, AES-XCBC > > These are rather unusual choices for algorithms. Why did you pick these > algorithms? I would have accepted to see AES-CCM or something like > ChaCha20 there. As the IEEE 802.15.4 uses AES128-CCM* (modified version of AES128-CCM) for link encryption, the chipsets quite often have support for them. Because of that I would have picked AES128-CCM for both IKEv2 and ESP. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
