|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: IPsec Usage Question
Vince,
I meant in case "that's their only IPsec protection",
i.e., you can combine your iSCSI with IPsec gateway/device and
the box would be compliant. The 2-site tunnel scenario doesn't
indicate if they are compliant or not - it's simply not relevant, and
doesn't contribute to their compliance.
Regards,
Ofer
Ofer Biran
Storage and Systems Technology
IBM Research Lab in Haifa
biran@il.ibm.com 972-4-8296253
"CAVANNA,VICENTE V (A-Roseville,ex1)" <vince_cavanna@agilent.com> on
05/02/2002 19:40:07
To: Ofer Biran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc: Black_David@emc.com, marjorie_krueger@hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu, Paul
Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>
Subject: RE: IPsec Usage Question
Hi Ofer
|
|>This example MUST work. So you cannot require inner == outer
|>address, because that translates into saying that IP Storage cannot be
|>protected by a site to site IPsec tunnel.
|
|This is not Kansas any more... The iSCSI devices on both sites
|(assuming
|that's their only IPsec protection) are not iSCSI compliant. This
|definitely
|doesn't cover the IPsec protection mandated by iSCSI.
|
| Regards,
| Ofer
Could you elaborate on this. Why would such devices be in violation of the
iSCSI spec?
Thanks.
Vince
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Ofer Biran [mailto:BIRAN@il.ibm.com]
|Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:30 PM
|To: Paul Koning
|Cc: Black_David@emc.com; marjorie_krueger@hp.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
|Subject: RE: IPsec Usage Question
|
|
|
|Paul,
|
|>This example MUST work. So you cannot require inner == outer
|>address, because that translates into saying that IP Storage cannot be
|>protected by a site to site IPsec tunnel.
|
|This is not Kansas any more... The iSCSI devices on both sites
|(assuming
|that's their only IPsec protection) are not iSCSI compliant. This
|definitely
|doesn't cover the IPsec protection mandated by iSCSI.
|
| Regards,
| Ofer
|
|
|Ofer Biran
|Storage and Systems Technology
|IBM Research Lab in Haifa
|biran@il.ibm.com 972-4-8296253
|
|
|Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>@ece.cmu.edu on 05/02/2002 00:17:54
|
|Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
|
|
|To: Black_David@emc.com
|cc: marjorie_krueger@hp.com, ips@ece.cmu.edu
|Subject: RE: IPsec Usage Question
|
|
|
|>>>>> "BlackG" == Black David <Black_David@emc.com> writes:
|
| BlackG> AFAIK, IPsec has no standard or widely deployed mechanism for
| BlackG> handling gateway discovery or address association
| BlackG> dynamically.
|
|True.
|
|But let's consider a very common IPsec deployment scenario. I think
|this is actually the predominant one, but let's not argue about that;
|it certainly is quite common.
|
|Scenario: two sites, each with an IPsec gateway, and an IPsec tunnel
|set up between the two sites. All traffic between the two sites goes
|through the tunnel. (This is the classic IPsec based VPN scenario.)
|
|The way this is handled is simply by configuring the routing tables on
|the two IPsec gateways to forward to the other site through the
|tunnel. As far as the other nodes on the two sites is concerned, the
|other site is simply reachable via ordinary IP mechanisms, and the
|existence of the tunnel, or the addresses used in the outer headers,
|are none of its concern. And of course the IP addresses of the inner
|header cannot possibly equal those of the outer header in this
|example.
|
|This example MUST work. So you cannot require inner == outer
|address, because that translates into saying that IP Storage cannot be
|protected by a site to site IPsec tunnel.
|
|Now for a different case: if you use tunnel mode to protect traffic
|for a single node (a common case for laptops, so this is often called
|the "road warrior" case) then it may well be useful to allow inner ==
|outer. Some road warrior OS types will want that, others don't care
|so much, so it can be a simplifying approach. I have no objection at
|all to saying that inner == outer is useful, and for that matter I can
|go along with saying inner == outer should be supported. But, either
|way, inner != outer must be supported.
|
| paul
|
|
|
|
Home Last updated: Tue Feb 05 19:18:00 2002 8656 messages in chronological order |