Hi, 

I agree with Tero that doing full protocol performance analysis is more 
interesting than just comparing cryptographic algorithms.
In our tests, compared to unprotected packets, the power consumption for 
encryption did not exceeded a few percents, whereas ESP has a significant 
network overhead depending on the size of the payload. 

BR, 
Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Lwip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tero Kivinen
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 7:16 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lwip] IoT Performance Measurements

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

_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip

Reply via email to