Internet Engineering Task Force 104, 28 Mar 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: IETF104-IPSECME-20190328-1050

Description

IPSECME meeting session at IETF104
2019/03/28 1050

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/proceedings/

A

B

C

We should probably sign it.

B

D

B

D

Turn the projector off I'm.

E

Gonna be having a space. That's this side. We don't have you.

C

E

Right so I think it's time to start so I'm, giving this a check, Amy working group meeting and we have a quite tight schedule, so we'll probably go forward very quickly. This blue suit should be sorry. These are not well. You probably have seen this at least once before this, so we have Bruce it's going around and I mean it would like to have a couple of note takers. We are using the eater pad. So take note.

E

So if you are, you know in the my click, the middle shot like that that doesn't matter, because other people can help you and I already prefilled the inner puppet it. You know all the agenda items you just need to fill in what we decided. So any volunteers.

E

Will happily waste until we have to and then we start removing you know from the agenda item alright job right, that's fine and in notes, takers, job.

E

There should be detect a link to this actually in there here. Oh you.

D

Know what this is the wrong link.

E

Scratch scratched out tools from.

D

The link it changed actually, since the last meeting- oh but I, actually feels I actually filled in the tools person yeah just copy that over to the other one.

D

And supposedly they made the this this it's the same server and they were supposed to make it, so it would work either way. I was very first by being in.

E

The older stuff, alright, so I, is there anybody who'd like to help. You know trusting, but is where he is going to be order Mike, because he usually is.

E

Alright follow the helper alright, so so we have chopper, we have a mythical. We have an interpreter, that's wrong, URL and we have an here's. Our agenda, and it is we're still have has your two minutes before dinner code here, but we are going to be. We have lots of 10-minute systems which are you know, going to be hard to keep in time, because people are always want to have a discussion under not very many the time for you know, crystals, alright.

E

So let's go to the american group status, so we have one, you know draft. That is say finally, interest editor queue to split the anus and actually one of the guy forgot from here. By said to me, the EDD essay is actually possessing RFC.

E

First in the RFC editor kya style, I think then we have already Requested the publication for impact IV and we have I think we have very long working group last call done with you know, QR hikers, and to.

D

Actually, there's a the only thing: stopping it from moving forward is there's a small number of nits on the the draft. So the the write up is done and as soon as I can say that there are no nits, it will go forward.

E

Alright, then, we are now working on this ipv6 and ipv4 codes and then we have a couple hot items there, but this life they working group- trust that you are working on. So let's start with this last one because they're at the person who is the outer, isn't here just a.

F

Comment about quantum resistant. There are a couple of needs, but one it is false. Positive and third track was consider it's the prototype. It was considered as a reference, and doesn't it is a reference of oh I can fix it.

D

That's fine and just email me about the false positives: okay, thanks.

E

Alright, so so this is type ev6 ipv4 codes and we have been having discussed and actually it might be. So the person who totally isn't here is a data meeting Union presentations.

G

E

It's my job to give this. You know summary and it's easily unfortunate, because I'm the other side of this discuss.

E

So this is what he has been proposing at its best on here, is how to do how to do ipv4 and ipv6.

E

um If you haven't heard it here is the first line, it's an ipv4 requested and the respondent support ipv6. It can, of course, I can't allocate any adverse. It just says: return error code, I think he seeks only allowed and so on and and same thing. If he you know, if you request ipv6 and it supports ipv6. This gives you like pv6 Anderson, still says you that ipv6 only allowed meaning that, if even if you ask before separately, he wouldn't be getting.

E

You wouldn't be getting you that and if you ask, you know ipv6 and that respond only supports ipv4. It will not assign you anything and keeps you on with the ipv4 allowed and same thing with ipv4. You know only stuff and 1011 little bit more interesting stuff. If you requester asks both ipv4 and six and the responder only supports I mean before he of course gives you an idea up in four hundred sees and says: I do before all allowed and same for ipv6. And then, if you have a policy, they are saying that.

E

Oh yes, three question asked both ipv4 us out to be six, but the responder supports it so that you you can have either one of them, but not at the same time. So he returns. You know one of them and he doesn't return any error code because it's no, it's not only ipv4 ipv6 supported and the last one is that we support both ipv6 and ipv4 in both ends, and we return both of them and aware, of course, I.

E

Did it like this proposal because there's two not two testing codes and we already have these cases in some other places where we have this kind of additional xxx. You know a lot of a possible what we have in traffic selectors. We have additional traffic selectors possible or or something like that. If you try asking something and you get something back, but you know that's, not everything you could get more.

E

If you ask more questions so so in here, if you ask I'd be before address, ponder only support, you know: ipv6, it returns you, it doesn't return, do anything because you got it can't fulfill, but it says that then, if you ask you know something else like wrapping e6 address, you will get that and if you ask ipv6 hundred and you get ipv6 address, that's what you only get. No, no error codes and same thing.

E

If you ask ipv6- and you know responder soup or something before you and and you know it doesn't, give you anything but returns an error code, and these next three months are it's just that's what you ask you know without any error code, because there's only one option today. The second last one is the interesting one is. If you ask I p, v6 and ipv4, both and responder has a policy that oh we can I can do why baby six and I can do ipv4, but I can't do them on the same essay.

E

So it returns you either one either ipv4 or ipv6, and it tells you that, oh by the way, you could have more, if you just make a new request, little bita, for example, all that previous exact result, not that so so the question is now is: what is the groups you know feeling about us?

E

It's it's most, the same addictive. The one that does you know. I just know thing is something that we have used earlier. The other one is it's bit more explicit, saying that only this one is supported only that is supported in the original versions. They had. You know a couple of more extra codes that we got eliminated and but do you have any anybody have any comments and nobody has any feelings for how to build it. Well,.

F

Off on this bus, I think it was disgusting, the least, and alternative designs. Well, it was you.

G

F

It was me who tested well anyway. It's mine idea is first not to use our status top talent if ocation status, notifications that you start a stopped notification, because it's a ignore it. If you'd understand it, it's okay and don't well, don't say only this about it in supported, beautiful I, support, ipv6 and minimize. The Rainbows is notification, so a since the terrace design is good and my design was good enough. It's it was very similar, so the draft is nothing to be changed to accommodate these ideas. It's my opinion. So.

E

You would say that this you know original address, stuff type of thing before norelco, one.

G

One noticed as you go all of this.

E

Has Santos notification codes would be better your opinion right. Any other comments.

E

All right, I think we need to continue this something mystical rather I. Don't think we have enough people commenting here and if you have only one or two people and at the outer in the other side, I think it's. We don't have a clear consensus that both of those are actually acceptable and I. Don't think they I, don't think, there's anything wrong with their choice. It's just that would be more. You know nicer to have less codes as well. Alright, so I think that's that covers our current crafts that we have set.

E

We had a presentations on and then we let's go to the work items so the first one is to you know this immediate, immediate exchange, so Valerie.

F

Update of intermediate exchange, it was previously called ox like ox. Now it is called intermediate so or adjust. If you forget it, quick Olivia, what is it so? If transfer what you want rotated between before, like else we define a new exchange type, it is called intermediate x-bike ox and it is continuing. People know that it can be fragmented, so we turned have Alicia's, who is a large payload size and IP fragmentation, and so what was changed from previous version, so somebody changing.

F

People complains that a Cox is not good. Manners can be very well mixed means, I caused I, don't know.

G

Whether his name is button.

F

But if somebody.

G

Was in a situation.

F

With a continuous about shaking well so as a result on a consideration, section abated reflects.

G

His changes of his name and.

F

The other change is more important. It was changed the way the exchanging authenticated. So it was a discussion with Scott about this particular issue, so in police design, each party included only he's a for only intermediate exchanged messages into its signature. So and we have discussions some discussion, it is.

G

F

Scott about this, and he suggested addressed to change the altercation scheme so that all messages are included in each party signature as it is.

G

F

Here and so I think that it is safe, I hope at least it won't hurt.

F

And besides, a couple of changes is made so that input to the office change those that it will be convenient for implementation, because it is just a result.

G

Of an imitation.

F

Just to save one before location just think it's it's important. So what is impact our syndication scheme of the immediate exchange so I think it's tourism authentication and it makes my configuration facilitation and.

F

So I see the law has already issued adoption go. Was it draft and.

F

If you have any comments, questions.

H

Paula, it was right at UM one one one bike shed on one question, since this is changing the message ID in the ike offshoot. This document updates seventy to ninety six, which might say that the message ID is number one specifically I, don't actually know I'm.

F

Not sure we can check, but if it is, if it is, it's possible well,.

H

F

Well, it's a question to arches as far as thermometers opinion was that if, if this particular feature is negotiated, you don't need to update the court document and actually.

E

We talked about if the base RFC says that they a message ID is incremented for every single. You know frame every time. You said the.

G

E

It doesn't I, don't think it actually ever say is explicit. That Ike out is always a society one or the examples, of course, have it one, because it's a it's a second extension I, don't think it actually says anywhere that that and actually I kind of have multiple one of these have.

G

One two three four.

E

So III don't think it actually should update and I, don't think actually, okay, so.

H

um So second, questions I would like some clarity on what to do when the ike intermediate exchange is empty. Throwing an error seems silly, but like relying with an empty message, also seems silly well.

H

How to use in communities chair but- and you must tell me what to do- if that's not the case, yes,.

F

It is okay to confront exchange what it must be contained, so it was publication document so currently well.

F

I

F

Tokens it defines as a content and different the condition I just.

H

Don't want to deal with different implementations. Sending different notifies was like no proposal chosen or bad format or whatever, like I, just want to.

J

Make sure what.

H

To expect and in my last bike shot comment, I really want this to be called Ike underscore intermediate. Well,.

G

If this intermediate.

H

Because this is only relating to the icon, if we would have done things the best way from the start, all the Ike related exchanges would have been cult underscore underscore so so I would prefer icon Oscar intermediate I.

F

Have more objections, if you're just a mimic informational, is it Lex bike informational? So that's why we have information and intermediate, but.

H

Informational can actually be about Ike or IPSec assay. It's just like create childless. It could be about both well.

F

This is only about.

H

Ike I don't so.

F

F

J

Poly Apple so in general, I think it's good I, like the updates to the document. I've sorry I, supported in that regard, I agree that having Ike underscore in there would be a little clearer, so don't really care too much, but a minor +1 and then just to clarify, because I looked up the text around the only thing that mentions Eickhoff being packet, one it's so it's in the part that we're defining message IDs and it says that the in it is message zero and then just has like an example sentence in which it says.

J

Thus the first pair of Eickhoff messages will have one. Then the next thing will have two and so on so I think it's totally fine. Don't worry about it at all. Okay,.

F

I

You Tobias I, hope you know. um I was also wondering about the exchange ID like we do. You need additional drafts, providing extra content for the icon, immediate. Why don't we allow them to set exchange ID, so the user can say this is like underscore additional kids change.

F

So, do you want to say that each application is different, its own exchange, ID, no I'm.

I

Saying that maybe it would be useful for the draft, like the ones that are actually using the icon, immediate, providing their own idea. I.

F

Don't think it's.

K

F

Think it's possible, but isn't it duplicate smoke doubles, so I think that content. In any case, you must define a content intermediate exchange, but the current dropped serves a main purpose. It defines how you authenticate this exchange and how it is negotiated, how error are handling in case they happen, and if you redefine it, it's error application document. You need to repeat all these texts and probably to repeat the code I, don't know it depends on implementation.

F

So I said I understand its framework document, so it's useless without any application document, but as framework document I think it's it's better to have it in one place. All these issues.

E

Documenting not as a chair but yeah I think it actually is because if the to integrate the exchange is really a framework, so we could say that okay, we don't have an excess type for it at all. We only have said that this is the framework. How do you do these things? This is you know this is how you actually send the you know stuff, and then all the you know, documents that actually you know use.

E

It would then define their own, which would have a good thing because we tend it could actually have a you know. Example like we have. If we have a like owls, we have a create child essay. Then we could have you know USDA, you know exchange there, which has this is using. You know the framework of what you have there, but using completely different.

E

It would allow you know this kind of, and it also, but of course that would also mean that we and actually I think that's actually one of things that you know Nico says in interim intermediate is actually most of the time pointless per se. You are not really negotiating that you are gonna use framework. You want to negotiate that I want to use this feature. That is using the framework, which is, of course, you know if you are continuing to ska I mean, and it requires intermediate.

E

There's no point of saying oh yeah, by the way to port support. This and I also support this. They all go to always go together.

F

If you perform exactly 150 exchange and small public key in my case, I need so they are somewhat decoupled. That's why it's.

E

Sort of thesis that, because we are still want to do that, we this is you know, exchange we do before I called and it's not a you know, gain Eric. You know this kind of thing. You know you could say that okay, this has certain meaning of because of that, and it's only meant to be transport. You know stuff that is needed for I cows or before I like out. In that case, it could be. You know, say that.

E

Okay, we have that the 10 you could have a negotiation of the you know like intermediate: it's actually lists what protocols can be inside there like it's it for you know to so have the notification of supported you could have a you know, feels they are selling that we do support this key, a Chiari mortis or this gear stays more risky. Xa Marshall, but I mean both of these are actually done. I think it would be useful to think about and see and that but I don't think yeah.

L

Tobias cover most from anymore I think we had this discussion on the list and I found your point very good that you could use an application which works without the intermediate that.

G

L

Benefit from intermediate yeah, so you can do puke a pqe.

G

L

The ike in it, if you want, if you don't care about IP fragmentation, but you can benefit from my expectation if you want. I think that was the point which I found convincing.

E

Now exorcist yeah, they were sequestered us to velocity. Do a hammer this analytic. Actually, this too early I think this actually isn't anything that we can actually start working on. This manatee selecting fruit crop so I think it because I mean I mean both of these are actually completely valid. You know, ideas and people has been and I think it's more like a design, you notice kind of what is nice and it depends on source or how many of these things to be happy record.

E

All you have your one cue sta is the only one is going to be using they're so different than if people are seeing that, oh, you can have. You know several different other things that would be using that it's like a little bit different, but that so I think this is actually something we could should go to the list and think about they're a little bit more. But now I want to exercise what question?

E

Does anybody see any have any objections to taking this or working group crafts and knowing that we can actually still have a continue, working and modifying it heavily in when it's working for craft actually more easily, because we can always changed? It's all terrific so, and we have already discussed this in list and I haven't seen anything anything in the list. That would say otherwise. So I will actually go and push the button and make it as a feature of product. So you can actually put the next version. We can prove an.

F

Ectopic, that's quantum system to draft, so the draft was updated and it changes.

G

F

The first slide is just a review in case. You forget what it is all about, so we're all expecting that quantum computer will come soon and break all the security. I was a photography, public, key exchange, photography and so.

G

That's why and you message.

F

That this grant insecure to be appear, but all of these methods that were currently known of how each public keep most of them well,.

F

I'm not sure, are not trusted completely trusted to any of these.

G

F

So that easy to combine exchanges and to steal the key into I guess a kiss computation. So the idea is to use intermediate exchange and that will contain that will transport additional quantum, probably cuz Ponton, but anyway it doesn't emit 2.0 edition of key exchange methods are in the zone.

F

This key the show it came ashore. The key will be steered into new S key sheet that will be updated after each intermediate exchange so that each subsequent intermediate exchange is protected by a new key. So the security.

F

So that's an idea, so what has changed from the worse version was worried, long discussion, how the use or addition case change should be negotiated.

G

F

This is just just another. What was changed so using multiple key exchange you create LSA is defined so that this random case change message can be used in 13, al qussair and Croatian chalices.

F

So the name was changed into media to inflate with.

G

F

Consideration is, are dead-set, resultant been pronounced, draft and some stuff.

F

So negotiation so for negotiation, we use.

G

F

Scheme with the find a new exchange type, so each new seven new exchange types which are essential is the same adjust number and each new exchange type will share the same.

F

So you can change fast, quantum or classic will comes the same registration.

F

Exchange type, so as the number of his change type we've defined the order of this numbers for defying the future. This case change for per increment. It will be.

F

E

Alright, so more comment, I would hate to see that kind of happening. Please happen, I mean having seven to new traffic types is bad. All of them, sharing the same, transform type tip for is even worse and because I they are not interchangeable. I mean I mean that if you human groups, we have in transform tip type for our groups for specificity for common type of thing. These are completely exchanged. You know things that don't have anything to do with that kind of.

E

If they are, they are resulting and same thing, but they don't have a same kind of you know and I assume that they also will probably have some parameters inside.

F

E

I would really think that they, if you actually want to make a new transport type, we could we would actually make a new one and make a crumpet in the register, for that would only include there. You know things that are you know in this and I I, don't really see that we actually to have it and the order, if you actually want to have an order negotiated. That's also something that is said in most of the cases it's very fixed. No, it isn't because, usually the police.

E

You have to say that we do this and dice and that that those are the only works. You are a trust or it might be saying that they lease keep things that we don't support or the other in such a support, but usually tells okay week, I mean, for example, if you think about the multiple out indications, we have this draft multiple indicators. In that case, we already left everything in there. We don't actually negotiate. You know what out in the cases you are doing in the beginning.

E

It's just do two different island occasions, and you know they assume that they are configurating in in the both ends or access. The recipient feels asked for something this way, but anybody say dates. It's one by one you do one and then you do a government to do other one under the other. One is how happy at fit- and it's saying that okay now done and I think similar kind of thing would be here.

F

First of all, from the point of view, all these quantum exchange serves. The same purpose is difficult money, so it's exchange methods then sharing since the register will allow us to reuse to use this post constantly exchanging like I, say I need to so you can just in time for it. You will. If, if the key is not enough, so it's very variant in the future, then it would allow us to use classic keep multiple classic exchange.

F

Some people, like it so I think that, because discussed ones also, it will discuss all to load and it was sorry quite decisions discussed and so.

M

That we actually talking about most of what I was going to say, but I like to emphasize that one of the things we certainly wanted to do is allow well we'll do this. But we'll do this. Picard classical group plus you to this particular latest group, or that particular latest key exchange and also will will insist on a misogyny group disallowed. This one a construct allows that to be done relatively straightforward to.

I

Be asylum well, first of all, I also seek good reasons to use to classical keeps changes that we have right now, combined in a hybrid Keith's change and I. Tell you a key idea of you know just adding another layer of hierarchy where you can sort them into groups, but I will still put the old ones in there as diffie-hellman groups, so you could still combine old ones. The way you like it and use.

I

Also, you actually need to be able to decide which is first because the first one has to be the smallest one, because it's in the I guess a in it. I.

N

I had some of the same comments about the transferrin types, but Martin cotton, but maybe I, would just ask question because I'm just confused by something is that in registrations that you make in the arianna consideration section, do you have seven of these seven new ones right, I didn't see a place. Otherwise in the document where it talks about that limit that the number seven.

F

It's a well, we discuss it, amongst all says, so it is a limit of the maximum number of additional key exchanges. It can be so we decided that seven additional key exchanges quite enough.

N

Sixteen sure I mean and I.

N

You know I think seven is this as a random number is a sensible numbers any, but maybe that argues for the hierarchical idea that another speaker suggested and that you wouldn't have to determine a fixed, a fixed number well.

F

The motivation for that was that again, Scott Scott idea was that in most cases, the best one to exchange of completely different types would be combined. So if currently we have is a Jenny I cut the based latest.

F

Three types: let's double it.

F

We can, if it isn't sufficiently complicated.

E

I mean we could do this also, so that I don't see any reason why we have to negotiate all of this in the first I for first essay payload this. If he because it in the first essay panel, that's going to be very difficult to her. If we have any parameter still, you know what what what discuss this in early. You know key a group or something like that.

E

How that interacts you there, and so how do so, so what what I was thinking, but it would be better to do that that they, actually you know, each of these intermediate steps has said negotiated. Okay, I want to use one of these for free. You know, Pierre says whether one of them can't be classical group for the other. One could be, you know, group type for the other. One could be, you know, type seven with CC or whatever the number is X number. This is saying that we are doing this kind of it.

E

You know, first quantum you know algorithms and then the other ones when did receives that it picks whatever he thinks like it. It's okay or actually there is that if the key extends you know, pillows are big, you probably want to you know, guess correctly or you want to actually you know negotiate first and then do the extra extra round trip there to do the negotiation, but having them to be. You know, negotiated in the beginning, all the seven different algorithms in the order.

E

What they are going to be doing is going to make an essay payload huge. If you want to support multiple different combinations of those, because you have to say okay, you can do this first, this first, this you know. Second, okay, of course, I also want to make that you. What you are not going to be selecting you know all same has to be one thousand pitiful human crowd for, but the we will.

E

You will propose that said that in else possible places, because you would say that you can do that phone in in any place, but we got seven powers in the row is actually not going to help anybody. So that's why I was thinking about you know doing this in the beginning, it's a little bit bad devil, so I was think about. It would be balanced, better saturated the x-ray.

E

You know in the first I guess say like a saying it reacts when you negotiate the first, you know key exchange and the next one, no to first the second one. We already has responded that the responder has already said. Okay,.

E

And one of those would be I'm happy now.

F

G

E

E

O

Wanted to say that I agree with the principle of not giving any special treatment to the quantum safe groups. I think they should be in the same register, usually that if you Helmand groups do I want there, the flexibility to be able to take a classical classical, hybrid or quantum quantum hybrid, if necessary, having them all in the one place is yeah, helps to thing I.

M

Did scar floor I like to respond for bought product potato about two things? What about parameters well, I would like to remind them that transforms can have attributes, and it's unclear at all. It's immediately unclear whether or not we'd make sense to have attributes to key exchange transforms, but the possibility is there. In addition, he seems he's worried about the size of the SI proposal. If you have a large, if it's rather complex, I believe that with them with the inherent and which is with built into proposals, would be.

F

Don't different, you.

F

Primitive, they define key exchange, penny chief and.

F

Defines in which order these additional exchange must be performs, it's only difference.

F

So well, two more points so in the main, clip known, transform addy if any of this exchange- and that means that this exchange, the same number are all optional. You doesn't do it and for compatibility with legacy implementation, you need to define to unit in clip to balad sorry, two proposals, one of these exchange diamonds, rather without so.

F

Well, it's just the properties, you can be firm, want, observe, exchange and I can say in it. That's a good thing. That's.

C

F

A property, so we chose.

C

The same registry.

F

This is an example of how look if you express your policy or I want to do is b-52. You know you could say needs, then you hope, son, father's and either are we all done, is a sitcom and aromasin. It's just an example. Well, another stuff and the usual additional keeps changing policy. It's not an easy task, and we've discussed quite a lot about it, and the current proposal is to this requirement that were take into consideration. Is that message size too much evenly?

F

It must not different different.

F

Even much content from the.

G

Initial decisive.

F

Initially, you say establishment, so that's why the idea is to not to put all key exchange burrowed into single creature, the same message, but instead have a trader information exchanges that perform that mimic. I can't immediate exchange.

F

Initially, created, as it looks a bit unusual, it probably a bit complex, but anyway.

F

Some advantages.

P

F

P

If you want to map this to the stuff we do in regular, actually to this is the this is in case, which were doing the child to say with afford secrecy.

O

P

Of creating which other say without.

E

E

F

Can tell the same is because so three cases, and so this is a scheme, counted how it is implemented. So we have catch on to say and if PS agree that.

F

Confirmed then, this our creature of the say, is a company bus by some trailer into information exchanges it from additional key exchanges, and only once all these exchanges are done. The new si is created so there's a new notification, additional exchange that allows responded to link. It is a four initiator to me. This exchanges, because she sends a request receives response immediately, start new request.

F

So it's it's the single stage responder, which is a bit tricky because once a great job to say is over, it must save state somewhere, but he must link it with one of the next information exchange in case greater than one remember interview. So that's.

P

F

Notification is needed, so it is like okay, so it is meaningful only for responder. It allows him to link this exchange together. So next steps. So just at notification. A lot of codification is noted, south meeting to discuss alternative stuff, in particular part a chalice, a and as soon as the tapas sound. The message is released so I think he just smiles or everything we discussed there. So the toughest we worked further, that's ink. It is a woman. So any questions comments move forward.

F

Well, we are looking for adoption of this draft, so I, don't think it is premature or not, but actually.

F

O

Support adoption that they start out yeah we've got a requirement for it. I'd like to have to see it progresses quickly as possible.

I

um To be decided, I also support adoption, but I would change it to be about hybrid key exchange, not hybrid, post condom key exchange, because it can also be the classical one. Mm-Hm.

G

I

Then do did post condom stuff in another document. Okay,.

F

I

There's no transforms it is in the.

F

Well, as far as I understand, the draft must describe how to use key exchange with balloons with public key of watch. Size does not mention, I mean.

I

Just a motivation to do that.

F

D

In the IETF we we generally are adopting an approach. Not a specific draft I'm, so I would prefer. I would prefer that we work out some of the mechanism issues here before we adopt the drafts properly. So maybe we can resolve the the mechanism discussion on the list and then do a quick adoption call. Then, okay.

P

Just as a matter of processing, there's no point in adopting intermediate if we're not adopting this, and if you can't adopt this, if not also integer doctoring.

E

Intermediate I agree on that. Yes, I thinking piece of probably adopted, you can modify it even if it's a working document, it's no problem but we're running out of time. So I would actually, if you have a very short comment, you can make it.

Q

So very short, I think it's it's better to adopt and do the change then being in a in a state where we don't really know. If that's the engagement at the end, energy to spam need worth or so I'm favor.

F

D

You so we would ask that all presenters be as brief as they can, because I think we're currently 10 minutes behind schedule, so we'll hurry up then want.

I

To be a spider, that's an implement us view in the hybrid quantum key exchange and I'm the inferno. So that's what all the fuss is about. Those are the 17 key exchange. Canada's stood on NIST competition right now for post front and Keith's changes. We see it as three big categories, lattices codes as or Chinese, and all of them are quite dead. Do you have disadvantages compared to what we're using now? So they do have bigger keys. They might be a lot less fast and we don't know how secure they are overall.

I

So we actually want to do a hybrid key exchange because we don't really trust them, so we want to have a fallback which is our classical key exchange. So what we do is we combine a classical heat exchange and when, if there's new methods- and that is here's- a simple method of doing it- like the most simple method, you could do just to find any a group call it streamlined and 2 prime plus 65 5 online Kakao tonight the keys and put them in e ke payload.

I

We can just use that group a series every other group and now you've got a post quantum key exchange that is los hybrid, so well that wasn't even hard downside. This solution is limited, so you have to predefine your groups, there's there's fixed combinations.

I

That's a problem might be a problem and also you can't use fragmentation so talking about fragmentation using did 588 ipv6 fragmentation threshold, that's what you still can use if she cannot fragment and it's even worse for ipv4 there's only two things left that you could use. So that is not just the right solution to that problem. Actually, so my next implementation is placed on and Valerie's draft or ask the what Valerie just presented.

I

So what do you do? You just add on additional intermediate exchange that exchanges, another key, so I can say in it is basically the same. Just the SI also includes the post, quantum key exchange negotiation and then you do are not around and basically do you design my Saphira key.

I

It looks great, so this is the same as before, just using knee approach. Now this also challenges, that's the V key and it looks complicated and it is complicated and it has a lot of problems we we have to keep state. We have this additional and notify using that link cookie, because actually the transmission window might be bigger than one.

I

In that case it cannot be and if initial key exchange and that that was a pain to implement, as you say so, I would actually the only reason we've been using the intermediate and not put it all into D in it is because we cannot fragment the energy.

I

So if you can't fragment decree, try to say we can just put it all in there, so we would do an educated guess on what the responders, probably accepting, because we don't know yet well I- think that's no problem, just put it all in there and she's gonna accept it or not. Otherwise, it's just handled the usual way using invalid K payload.

I

So now, finally, if guarded we we can do fragmentation. We it's a fully functional, hybrid key exchange. We can be most random if there's methods are actually secure right, ah not yet there's two more that we do not support yet and why don't we support them? So I made a plot on the y-axis. We've got the public key size and megabyte on the x-axis. Is the encryption speed speed of these mechanisms and that red line down there? That's the 64 kilobyte, which is the size limitation of caplet substructures?

I

Actually because pay, let's go to 16-bit size field. We can put those in a ke payload and release is actually quite special because it's it's quite popular among the cryptographers, because it's been around for several years like 1978, I, guess and it hasn't been broken and just it has gotten review. So if you want to do post quantum keeps changed today, you probably would want to use that one and that's an unresolved problem. We've talked about it yesterday, actually, but there's no documented solution to it. So conclusion, I would like this draft.

I

She reduced the complexity overall, especially the wreaking. We should find a way to support mekinese keys, and this draft does not contain any first quantum kicks and transforms so either put them in there or real label it to hybrid key exchange, because that's what it is right now. Otherwise it is functional. We can do hybrid, post, quantum, key exchange and I guess just no security problems there. So Bobby.

F

I want to say that I was implemented. This draft.

G

So there are two.

F

Of us least and I think that Coach I'll to say is a little bit challenging to implement, but otherwise the proposal to put all the exchange belong to the same message, has significant drawbacks. So that message would become extremely large, quite extremely rich and we don't want the press call to lose.

G

Reliability because of the great number of fragments- that's, why was this design was.

F

Selected and well I sense that it's it's a bit challenging, but actually it is not it's doable and another comment was a comment on it. It's about michaelis and the same.

G

So we've discussed it yesterday and actually the idea was so.

F

Before there's a mailing list, it is quite possible if people don't want to use this geese, so we can, we can do it well, it is not it in sub-optimally we can break these huge public keys into several key exchange, broad adjacent exchange below and just put them into the single message. It is not a good, it is not optimal way, but it will. It is workable, at least so. Just thank.

I

You very so yeah, actually I made these slides before I've talked to yesterday. So I do know your position, and this and I see now the problems you try to solve. I still think this is not the optimal solution, so maybe put it all into a singer. Other additional key exchange, don't use informational.

I

So I didn't like the use of information that you would have to you, know parse context-sensitive and see where you are and if this information actually contains two key shares and so on, and maybe put it all into one additional I, don't know. I I cannot offer any solution or I see a problem there and having.

D

The line after you have okay.

I

And luckily we can totally do that in another document. But I would just like to say that it is important. I guess just people here who would like to have support for Maglis right, and it would be nice to find a way to integrate it and.

P

You have no I, don't think it's going to be too difficult to define that in a way extended size below that has a 4 bytes length field.

P

Yeah, you probably won't want that in regular UDP, a problem, the anticip e or maybe some future quick based transport for I could but erm yeah I, don't think it's it's a deal-breaker to have a large page, a larger payload than we had when I originally intended to fail. It's to be yeah.

I

Actually, the IKE header does have a 32-bit size field, so it's it's only two pilots actually so go to 4 gigabytes of yeah.

D

Awesome exchange.

D

We need to cut the line. Sorry can we take this to the list? Okay,.

I

G

So hi I'm, uni, pocket and I would say a few words about post quantum cryptography for Ike and strongswan.

E

G

So yeah I'm, Leone, pocket and I will say a few words about hybrid Ike in strongswan, so I think you are all aware that highly sensitive data needs to be protected with most quantum cryptography very soon and, however considerable time is required for standardizing algorithms, implementing and testing and so on. So and that's why we'd like to have a standard soon and to explicitly support adoption of these two documents.

G

And actually we have plans to demonstrate hybrid Ike, based on the intermediate exchange and our hybrid Ike is a bit different from the one proposed in the draft and when I say our hybrid Ike I'm, referring to to the strongswan implementation by Andrea's Jason and to be as Boehner and it's based on an earlier version of the Ox draft.

G

But I think will be updated soon and some details so and this implementation supports only one additional post, quantum key exchange and the new transform tab is added called Kiska a mechanism, and so negotiation is done via the ESA PO payload as usual, and we also add a new qsq.

G

A payload and the key shares can be transported by are the odds or intermediate exchange, but they can also be transported in create child as aid to allow for wreaking and multiple child as a sand in case in case Keisha is sent which is not supported by the responder. We use an invalid qsq, a payload to indicate support for another post quantum algorithm and for post quantum algorithms. Currently, lib oqs library is used, which provides some of the round one candidates of the nist standardization process and yeah.

G

If you would like to have a look on the test scenarios, you can click on that link and now that's it.

D

L

Tobias coolness from LMU I just have one comment not to the presentation, but in general no we have like four implementations. Maybe we could do a heck, I thought.

R

E

Would be a good idea that would need to have a jumpin' jumpin' to organize that in the next? Are you, volunteering good.

L

Yes, if you pay two mantra to fly me to Montreal I mean.

D

We probably should have some discussion on the list, maybe about organizing something. Thank you.

L

Okay, hello, so Tobias here, I'm, not talking about post quantum I'm for sure, so we have done with this topic. This presentation is about the ESP header compression and the presentation is because lasts ITF. We had this discussion. Why is this document so complicated and I would like to explain why it is like that and I'm trying to make it short.

L

So can anyone here imagine a use case for IPSec in IOT or bate? Maybe the better question? Can anyone imagine there is not a use case for it? Okay, good!

L

So I keep this short I just run through a few ideas and you can use it for basically anything you do with IOT and the basic thing about IOT is they want an IP stick and my or our thing is if we want to if we want to have an IP stack and we should allow people to use IPSec in IOT. That's my basic comment about that, and there are many use cases. For example, my favorite one is multicast because it's naturally for IP a sec, but that's just the person thing.

L

Ipsec has a lot of advantages for IOT, and one basic thing is that we have the flexibility of key exchange, so we can use ike like many more IP to is already there. It works very well. We have group like where we also have an imino implementation, which works a very well for IOT scenarios.

L

We have hip I'm, not sure if everybody knows did, but it's standardized for iTrip I, actually 802 15 4, which is a major product wireless protocol for IOT, and we can do one thing we can just compile and flash this ace on the device. Why is this an advantage and why is IPSec not widely deployed?

L

So there are many reasons, but I want to go to one which is to wonder draft addresses it's about compression and the problem is the packet size in this kind of scenarios and wireless networks is a problem not only because of energy, but it's two major issue and the problem is. You would like to send your data if you can, in one single radio frame and I put a few payloads here which are typical for IOT scenarios. So 802.15.4 is basically the upper line.

L

There are stuff like Laura, which I got thought lost this week, that we can actually go as low as 12 bytes for a payload. Bluetooth is also can also be quite minimal. So whenever you have an IP stack on that, you want to minimize that, and there are many ideas on how to do that. The one favorite or one famous solution is a stateless solution which is called 6lowpan. It compressed just information within the packet.

L

So basically, the red thing here is the IP UDP header, and with this it's actually three bytes, you can transport all the information you have in this huge ipv6, UDP header there isn't you can do it like that there is no information left, it's only the payload. Another ideas which is older and younger is a stateful compression.

L

So, if that you have actually have a compression state between the two peers, which are communicating the older one, is robust header compression, where you have a separate channel to agree on a compression context, the newer idea is, and that's the one which comes from IOT is that you have a static context. So you just compile a contact or reflash a context on a certain device and how does basically it works? Is you have like rules and functions with the context, so you can, for example, say: rule bonds means delete the UDP destination port.

L

If it's equal to 18, that's what the sender does and you just send the rule ID one where's, the packet and receiver. Sorry, the receiver knows hey, does this rule one I can I know it's UDP port 80 I can decompress it and you can do that for the whole packet. So problem is IPSec.

L

This compression usually takes place between layer three and two and three so after the IP stack problem is ESP is everything we can compress this already encrypted and I mean you can you can compress encrypted payload? But then you maybe don't want to encrypt it, so the only thing we can do and which is actually kind of done already. You can compress the ESP header, because this is this- is the information with just in plain text there nothing else.

L

The good news was easy header compression. We already have this kind of channel to agree on a state which is or IQ to group IP. We can do it static. We even have a static State, which is our security Association, and this state already includes some information we can use for compression. So basically the traffic selectors. If you do them uniquely, you can. You have the IP addresses theory of ports there and much more, and actually, we've done this before Rock over rock over IPSec is already there.

L

The problem is, we need to define how to make use of this context and one thing which turned out like the last I think two or three years, especially in the six loop and this lo pan, a community which are developing this static context, hello compression that rock is too hard. 6Lowpan is too hard. So we need to do something different and the problem is this required specification?

L

So we need to define what to do with an every single header of the protocols we want to compress, and this is unfortunately why this draft is kind of long, but I will try to go quickly through what our idea is. It's very close to what the people in the ship work and the lp1 working group do and they actually liked the idea quite a lot.

L

So we kind of split the ESP stack in four layers, so we have a pre ESP, so basically been so the input of the ESP stack where you could compress the IP UDP TCP. Whatever you have in plain text for the payload, then we have clear text ESP. So once you have to use P packet build, then you can compress, for example, the ESP trailer we have to encryption phase.

L

This is not part of this draft. This is, for example, done by implicit IV that you can just kind of compress the information you need for encryption, and you can do something after the ESP is properly processed. You can do you can compress the ESP header or which is also not parked. For after don't worry, you could do something as the ICD, but it could be that there is some sort of short, shorter ICV calculation for IOT scenarios.

L

So the way we do it and I said it's very close to what the people in the LP bond working group do. We defined functions and the functions basically just says what happens on the compression side and one dirty cop inside so, for example, scent value just means, don't compress anything which is if there are like variable options in ipv4 or TCP or whatever elite. It means there is a context available which allows you to just delete this specific field.

L

So, for example, I have an IP address in the traffic selector just deleted and decompresses on the receiver. Then we can do something like for sequence: numbers like basically a reverse idea of extended sequence. Number second mechanism: we can compute values from lower layers. So, for example, you can calculate the UTP lengths from the alter, IP lengths and I'll checksum is easy and yeah padding is something you can also do. That's just the functions used for compression and what you then do. You define the rule? What happens on a specific field off the header?

L

So I go back to the example before, for example, the IP address, we have a rule which says compress ipv6 source the field it it affects the source address of the ipv6 header. The action is needed, so it's removed and the parameters or the value you use is the IP 6 address with just to be negotiated during the peers and we defined roles and rules for all headers within ESP. We could imagine and that's why this document is so long. So currently we use ESP ipv6 a p40 UDP you.

L

If you like TCP there were even like during the LP one session. There were people saying we should use you should at co-op, which is the constant application protocol. So that's yeah. That's basically how it works.

E

L

And then we have the context which basically just says which values are there and that's also something which has to be defined in those documents and how to make use of it again. For example, our IP addresses the problem remains. We have so many header fields which can be part of the ESP payload I calculated and like even you. If you say layer, four port is one one field so which can be used for TCP UDP UDP light. You come up with 4444 header fields.

L

You need to agree on the context beforehand and that's actually much more difficult than it shouldn't that it has to be because so many stuff is already there and that's why we have this strategy kind of thing which just defines how to make use of the existing IP SEC security associations to pre-fill to pre-fill this compression context, and that ends that we have one strategy at the moment which we call the I TSP, it's mainly for IOT, but it can be used for something else, and that basically means you have to exchange nine fields during the negotiation, so either I core whatever and it builds you the whole context of all these protocols.

L

You could imagine to compress so you actually exchanged just a little information and you can compress a lot and yeah. That's basically, my presentation I hope it's a bit more clear of what we actually want to do there. We have this on the Charter on IPSec.

L

The shake people are very in favor of it. So I guess we are pretty fine and I think you are for this idea of this like nice picture, because you had this before and I think we're ready to adopt it.

L

E

So I think we are running out of time. So let's move the discussion about it in the least next presentation is.

E

H

H

Ok, so history, geologists assume that people sort of noticed we've labeled, IPSec I'll, skip that there's an example. Is this the s P silicon kernel? You see that there's additional labels to select burden on the package should be encrypted or not so the original proposal vd8 was we added the traffic's like about a security label.

H

We added through the traffic like a list and people could just pick it if they, if they wanted it and in the main objection there was that there was little unclear in in the main draft that talks about traffic selector picking, because there's only basically two types, the v4 and v6 one, and you would always have to pick one of those types.

H

Would those be clear that you would pick one of them, but then, when we start adding new traffic selector types, it becomes unclear whether you have to pick a v4 and v6 one and other ones, or rather or how you would combine them. So after some pressure of the Honourable chair, it was decided to basically copy the existing traffic.

H

Selector type add a new field to it, and now you can select whether you would which one you would want to send, and so I sort of reluctantly agreed to this idea and then up until about two weeks ago, or a week ago we were at the Linux IPSec gathering here in Prague, and somebody came up and said: oh by the way I have some new SPD selectors I might want to support in the future, and they came up with veal and excit and and other things and then I started to thinking about.

H

Well, we cannot do this solution because now we're going to get a combinatorial explosion of all the things that people might want or not want to do so that basically brought me to the problem of like. Is this really the way forward? I think? Actually it might be better that we clarify you must pick a v4 v6 original traffic selector and of all the other traffic selectors types that are sent, and you must pick one of them.

H

So so, if there's any sec ylabel as like separate sec, ylabel traffic slicker types- and you must big one of the sec, ylabel ones and otherwise every check to proposal or pick another one and I think that is what I said.

E

And I think your craft already that's working proof craft, so we should discuss this again at least and yeah I. Think if you have more of those I agree on this, let's see all right. Your next presentation. There might be some discussion about this.

E

H

I give run graduate, so this got triggered by the I to NSF working group. I did some drafts on putting some of the IPSec modeling into there in today yang models and then recently started seeing all these obsoleted old things that they put in, because they're unfortunately actually might have heard me say on the plenary and they're they're trying to put inr registries snapshots into RFC documents, which is kind of terrible, and suddenly I see these options like oh we're going to support one des an actually.

H

It's not even one set that we've already said not to use it's like cast an idea, and and and all these sort of algorithms that we haven't deprecated, because we weren't weaker, we didn't find any attack for them, but we kind of linger them in from Ike v1 error times, and so what we really needed, apart from the regular algorithm cycle, update very very give implementation recommendations. We should do something with all of these collected may and trees that we have left and sort of write.

H

One document to put all and together and say, don't use these anymore and that's basically what this drafted.

E

Tara Keenan we we are not in the process of giving instruction to people what to use. We can say that yes, I question. 1 is already deprecated, but we are not supposed to say, don't use. This I saw something that we should be doing. Ok because.

G

If you can say don't implement it.

E

That's again because you have commune structures, the implementers not to the users survey enough, so so, whatever I said reason just sed.

H

S

Implement dan Harkins yeah, this kind of reminds me of HL Mencken's comment about Puritanism, where he said that it's a haunting fear that someone somewhere might be having fun, and this seems to be like a hunting- fear that someone somewhere might be doing Icke v1 and you know not sure, really why we care regarding using Ayane as a way to kill off a deprecated protocol. I, don't think that's really the point of Vienna registries. I I do agree that things like tiger and caste. We might want to deprecated, but I. Think the.

E

Deprecated and his phone it for the I know, this is only for a cipher strike. Yeah.

S

The draft actually says to deprecate the entire like v1 registry, which I think would be a mistake, because people.

G

Don't know if you can't do that any other people are.

S

Using that registry- and we can't no, we can't just go deprecated everything that has to do with act, for you wanted.

H

So it's okay! So sorry, so maybe deprecated lessons arrived word, but so there's this informal agreement in the room that we will not add anything to Ike, v1 and I was trying to more formalize that in RFC saying that we will not do that anymore.

S

Well, it's already obsolete in coming and the the updates to the Ayane registry that we've done since iq1 got obsolete. It actually says in the notes not for use with RFC 2409, so I'm not sure what else I'm, not sure or anything else is needed.

H

Ok, so you so you you mean nothing's needed with respect to Ike v1. Only with respect to some of these lingering may algorithms yeah.

S

I think the IP two updates are probably a good idea to get rid of caste, and you know Triple DES and all that other and.

H

S

For definitely after regular.

H

Cycle of updated algorithm requirements right so so these are the sort of like the sort of things that that will implicitly didn't do anymore. But we didn't sort of tell anyone.

S

Not to do them anymore, okay, it's just I, read in your draft. It just says you know high-end instructions to tell I added deprecated the entire IP one registry. In this.

D

Okay, so maybe a little okay.

S

That's much okay, so.

D

We're gonna cut the line. Why.

F

So for this plus two points, first of all, art supported. You need to well duplicate multiplicate. Well, they died. I could one already removed it from our product just last year, which is not implemented what they wanted, and the other point is: please save H for now it's probably uses, but it is at least harmless and comparisons like your on, so please keep aged for now. Just for the reason, because it provides some the probabilities, nobody use it, but it is.

H

Well but but that's exactly what we have now like: we've got all these entries there to.

G

Make sure that.

H

We think that are harmless, but that are not being actively used. So how reliable is it and how robust is it if you actually end up using it? Please make these comments short.

R

Ok, Benedict wrong. I just wanted to make a comment that we can't really get rid of triple des as far as I know, it's still using telephony, so that one that one is still with kinda has to say.

H

Triple s is actually in our regular cycle of algorithm recommendations to be slowly.

G

H

Away of, and not just like, killed we're really talking about things we forgot like cast like there was no reason to say: don't use casts insecure, but because it's not but but then again nobody has researchers for 20 years either. So do we really know that it's not insecure either? At this point all right, yeah, thank you. So then we have one final.

E

Presentation it's about ten minutes.

T

K

So this is a some new work to improve IPSec traffic flow confidentiality, I think probably a lot of people who are more familiar with this, but basically this is why do we want this is to protect against traffic analysis, which is the act of extracting information from the size and rate of data? That's.

G

K

And the point is you: can you can encrypt your payload, but you can still get information. You know from from the what I just said, there's actually a presentation: they use next 2017, where they're picking they can determine which movie you're watching they show picking which movie you're watching, even though the stream is encrypted. That's one example.

K

So the current available option there is an option available, it's mentioned in the RFC for ESP, and that is to pad out ESP the has so and all you it can carry zero or one IP packets. You can also have a all pad packet right because you want to be sending things at a fixed rate to hide the right.

K

This has suboptimal performance increases latency and it has a very low bandwidth. So our proposed solution is fairly simple: it's to continue to use IPSec ESP, but we have a new. We use a new payload and inside the payload we fragment and aggregate the IP stream. This creates minimal latency and gives us a constant high bandwidth. So we have a graph here showing that these results, so the top three constant lines are those new solution.

K

Ip DFS, the numbers are the MTU, so that's a nine thousand fifteen hundred and 576, and we also you can see that we have in the middle. You have either just pure Ethernet, so that's not a fixed size and ESP pure ESP. That's also enough excite so PFC going on there there's no confidentiality and then the bottom represents the currently available option right. So it's because it's very.

G

K

For bandwidth utilization, let's see what time do I get? Okay, so that's sort before there's a sales slide since I don't have I, have 30 slides I'm, never going to present all those so I'm gonna skip through some the key design points. It's we use a fixed size and caps elating packets. We sell them at a constant rate. The unidirectional thing is more about. The idea was that you could do TFS in one direction. You didn't have to do it in both. We had that as a goal in the design.

K

So right you covered that. Just talked about that the so you can you know the you could either set the the MTU size, the fixed size or you could use path, MTU discovery.

K

Right so there's modes: okay, so there's two modes you can run in, you can run in a congestion, control mode or or non congestion control mode. The non congestion control mode would be, if you own, your all the whole network right.

K

The congestion control mode is there for when you're sending through the internet, and you need to be friendly to PCP the particular thing this actually came up on the list a little bit and we're gonna redo the the way that the congestion control info is sent because I guess I'd violate it a little bit the IKE spec.

K

We also, uh you know, aren't married to any particular solution here. So we just need to get the drop reports back to the sender. So this is just a starting point right, so the non congestion control mode is obvious, but we we also allow for sending the congestion information in case you want to implement something like circuit breakers, so we'll skip that. So the basic good thing. So this is just some. You know basic packet formats, you, our header, is basically in more solid lines there.

K

So in you know, the ESP header followed by a block offset and that allows us to pack IP packets together. What that looks like is each data block. Looks we basically use the first nibble, so you we're not using any bites, actually specify the data block header. We just look into that. First, four bits, so ipv4 it'll be four b6o v6 and padding would be zero.

K

So the the congestion control info will be sent on an interval, but again I, don't really want to talk about how we're gonna send it. Since you know it's sort of in flux right now this this is just the introduction of this work right. We we imagine, discussions on the list and coming to the best sort of solution for how to sunset formation I. Also, you know it was brought up that we could do I. Think Valerie. You said you know why don't send an end band and I was like well it's unidirectional.

K

If we can, in fact, uh you know if we had just pure IP ESP coming back, you know through the the paired si if we could do a next header to attach it there. That might be a solution to that. uh Somebody mentioned to me actually anyway, so this is stuff. We could do an arrest since I don't have tons of time the data right now. This actually is also in flux.

K

I talked to David black from PSV, and he sort of given gave us some hints on where he says, like I, basically was leaving congestion control out of them up to the implementer, but we need to give a little bit more guidance, and so he pointed us at DCCC peak, which is data control congestion, protocol I, don't know if that's what it stands for, but that's part of what it does for data grams, and there are some profiles that we can look to that basically pair well with the solution.

K

So we just need to make sure that we're sending the correct data, though, and we need to make sure so so, basically that turns into a loss rate and round-trip time. So we just need to make sure that the information we're sending back to the sender contains enough to calculate those things.

K

So this is just some basic comparisons.

K

This is overhead comparison and octet. You can see the the current solution. The far left side is the sides of water is the the input packet size, payload size and the top shows the MTU of the encapsulation, and then the data inside the graph shows you the sort of the overhead, the wasted bytes.

K

So you can see it's quite large and if we go to the next one, it's this is same numbers by percent. So you can see that for the TFS solution, it's a fixed percent and it's very small, obviously there's some outliers there for the prefer. The currently available solution- 22,000 percent, it's horrible they're, not all that bad, but they're, all pretty bad.

K

This has bandwidth utilization over Ethernet. Again you see that it's you get constant bandwidth utilization with the TFS solution, the common m2u there. Oh thank you so much.

K

The common empty of 1500 is quite good, 94.9% utilizations, you can see if you look over to the left, even Ethernet, right that no IPSec right for the small packet payload sizes, we're batter right, because we have less overhead because we can pack a bunch of small IP packets into 100 into one over and kept sliding header.

K

The other thing to look at is latency, so this shows the latency.

K

They seem very similar between the current available and the TFS, but the difference is that this is represents the maximum latency for IP TFS, whereas in it sort of represents the minimal minimum latency for ESP.

K

You can go a lot deeper into this right, because if you start looking at queues, you can imagine if you're, if you're patting 40 byte TCP packets into 1,500, byte ESP right and then you have ten of those in a queue right. That's a huge amount of latency you're adding to that last 40 byte packet. So we there's some related work. That's going on in the I Triple E. With regards to this. They just met recently and it looked really promising.

K

There's gonna be there's progress on this, and it's anticipated in upcoming meetings well and I also wrote some code that's available at that link. Now this is just proof of concept code. It doesn't actually it's not actually an ESP because that's hard to sort of whip together quickly, so I used UDP. But basically what this is proving is the is the framing the packing and the the you know, fragmenting and aggregating of the payload packets, as well as being able to adjust to congestion.

K

So it does actually simulate congestion and drops, and you know shows that it can adjust to that using the information that we have in the draft that we plan to update as well. There's two implementations, Python and C I out of time, but I think I sort of covered the open.

F

F

K

F

To sacrifice some performance in simplicity, so I dress it to put the IP packets into HP, but make make it you make it to combine several I see.

K

What you're saying so.

F

K

Will affect the nice numbers but yeah, so why don't we Paul.

H

Quick because we're over time, yeah, okay, poets, um so I think that that discussin should be doing two things. One of them is sort of providing privacy in the other. One is sort of compressing, very small packets into bigger packets and saying those are two very different goals and for the first gold of privacy that the RFC you quote about ESP allows you to not only do padding, but also some dummy packets, so so from a privacy point of view.

H

The existing RFC already covers everything you would want to make a stream look like you know, a similar mana, monotone stream, so I think like then, maybe clarify bit why you want to do these other things that are like additionally complicated because I think that's foot, but we had a real work in this track for years. Sure.

K

Yeah I mean I the 22,000 percent overhead, with someone one of the reasons right, but go ahead. Lou if you have a.

U

K

U

My understanding is from implementations that have actually tried to do the existing RFC. It basically isn't deployable that it translates into what looks like a variable lost link because of the expansion. You know, if you think about a normal packet distribution. Well, we used to be bimodal really trimodal. Most of the bandwidth is in big packets, but most of the packets are little small ones and we end up just destroying the available bandwidth because of the expansion. So well he's not listening, but but you know the existing RFC, it doesn't work.

U

That's the problem that it's trying to be addressed here. All.

D

Right so thanks we'll take the rest of the lists, and that concludes IP. Second me for this week. Thank you. If you need to sign the blue sheets, please come up to the table.