minimal esp describes how to implement a standard ESP in a constrained
environment with minimal options as well as variants to minimize the impact
of the implementation on the device.
diet-esp defines how to compress / decompress ESP. The description is
pretty much complete. We implemented it on Contiki. We were wondering
whether to adapt with SCHC. It would be cleaner in my opinion, but that is
just a thought.
Yours,
Daniel
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 4:44 PM Robert Moskowitz <rgm-...@htt-consult.com>
wrote:
> Daniel and Tero,
>
> How do diet-esp and minimal-esp intersect?
>
> minimal-esp is, it seems ready for publication, so nothing really changing
> it is possible.
>
> But what does diet-esp do instead?
>
> Squeezing down esp and adding support for SCHC ('easy' by adding it as an
> IP Protocol) is of interest to me...
>
> Bob
>
> On 4/21/22 10:36, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
> The question we are asking ourselves is should we re-write the spec with
> SCHC.
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 9:58 AM Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>> Robert Moskowitz writes:
>> > Yet in 8724, they define a in-band header:
>> >
>> > |------- Compressed Header -------|
>> >
>> > +---------------------------------+--------------------+
>> >
>> > | RuleID | Compression Residue | Payload |
>> >
>> > +---------------------------------+--------------------+
>> >
>> > How do you include this? This is especially needed with CoAP, rfc
>> 8824.
>> >
>> > What is preconfigured is what does the RuleID instruct you to do
>> with that
>> > compression residue.
>> >
>> > A bit more on this. When above Transport as in 8824, the port number
>> needs to
>> > know how to process the RuleID. When below IP as in 9011, the MAC
>> needs a
>> > type assigned for SCHC to know to use the RuleID for IP/whatever
>> expansion.
>> > MAC types are not the IETF's problem.
>> >
>> > It takes something like ESP that sits below Transport, to change this.
>> Thus
>> > this COULD be an lpwan issue for introducing SCHC, or it could be an
>> ipsecme
>> > issue as as far as I can think, only ESP presents this issue.
>>
>> You might want to check the Diet ESP work that was done in the IPsecME
>> WG few years back. It mostly died because there was not enough
>> interest to work on the drafts or implementations.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp/07/
>>
>> This is still in the IPsecME charter item so if there is interest to
>> start working on this then IPsecME WG has space for it:
>>
>> A growing number of use cases for constrained networks - but not
>> limited to those networks - have shown interest in reducing ESP
>> (resp. IKEv2) overhead by compressing ESP (resp IKEv2) fields. The
>> WG will define extensions of ESP and IKEv2 to enable ESP header
>> compression.
>>
>> Possible starting points are draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp,
>> draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension,
>> draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compression and
>> draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compact.
>> --
>> kivi...@iki.fi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPsec mailing list
>> IPsec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing listIPsec@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
>
>
--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
