YES to both. The WESP header provides a kind of rapid *deterministic* detection method for ESP_NULL packet. The heuristics method is too complex and it calls for more computing resource and computing time. I doubt the middle box whether will support the heuristics method for ESP_NULL detection. Although including the WESP header into ESP ICV calculation seems modifying ESP, it is necessary to check the WESP header integrity for counter certain attacks. The explicit WESP integrity calculation is OK for me, too.
I support WESP for encrypted ESP flow. WESP has the capacity to provide more functions by future extensibility than just traffic visibility for ESP_NULL. Nowadays ESP is used much more widely for encrypted flow than ESP_NULL flow. It is meaningful for middle detection machines to have the ability to detecting encrypted traffic. And then WESP could provide this kind of traffic visibility for both encrypted flow and unencrypted flow in future. regards, Min -----Original Message----- From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org <javascript:main.compose('new', 't=ipsec-boun...@ietf.org')> ] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:27 AM To: ipsec@ietf.org Subject: [IPsec] Traffic visibility - consensus call Hi, We have had a few "discusses" during the IESG review of the WESP draft. To help resolve them, we would like to reopen the following two questions to WG discussion. Well reasoned answers are certainly appreciated. But plain "yes" or "no" would also be useful in judging the group's consensus. - The current draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-11) <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-11)> defines the ESP trailer's ICV calculation to include the WESP header. This has been done to counter certain attacks, but it means that WESP is no longer a simple wrapper around ESP - ESP itself is modified. Do you support this design decision? - The current draft allows WESP to be applied to encrypted ESP flows, in addition to the originally specified ESP-null. This was intended so that encrypted flows can benefit from the future extensibility offered by WESP. But arguably, it positions WESP as an alternative to ESP. Do you support this design decision? Thanks, Yaron _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec> _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
