Subject: RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision

From: "Ofer Biran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 21:53:05 +0200

Bill,

I agree that you can make external devices that support transport mode,
but it seems that most of those existing today do not support it.

Anyway for our required decision... you also said you prefer tunnel mode,
right ?

  Regards,
    Ofer

Ofer Biran
Storage and Systems Technology
IBM Research Lab in Haifa
[email-masked]  972-4-8296253

"Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]> on 04/11/2001 21:39:22

Please respond to "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>

To:   Ofer Biran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <[email-masked]>
cc:   <[email-masked]>
Subject:  RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision

Ok,

How does mandatory Transport mode remove the possibility of external
IPsec...

I have said before I can make IPsec transport & tunnel mode work in
external
devices, just like you can do SSL/TLS accelerators both internally and
externally

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Ofer Biran
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 4:27 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision

Saqib,

Mandatory transport mode would make bundling of external IPSec
impossible, while tunnel mode is not more difficult to implement
within the iSCSI endpoint than transport mode.

"Cost of ownership and complexity of deploying a stand-alone
IPsec gateway" might be among the considerations of vendors and
customers, but I don't think the standard should block such
solutions (and  it blocks more than just stand-alone IPsec
gateway).

  Regards,
   Ofer

Ofer Biran
Storage and Systems Technology
IBM Research Lab in Haifa
[email-masked]  972-4-8296253

"Saqib Jang" <[email-masked]> on 02/11/2001 20:59:03

Please respond to <[email-masked]>

To:   "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>, "CAVANNA,VICENTE V
      (A-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
cc:   "SHEEHY,DAVE (A-Americas,unix1)" <[email-masked]>, Ofer
      Biran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <[email-masked]>
Subject:  RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision

What about the cost of ownership and complexity of deploying
a stand-alone IPsec gateway for use with IPsec end-points?
If transport-mode IPsec is a must-to-implement capability in
iSCSI end-points there is an opportunity to have much
more coherent security for iSCSI.

Saqib

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:33:38 -0800

I actually would prefer if we didn't say anything other than a statement
saying "Here is a policy that will cover IPS traffic" from there it is up to
compliant IPsec implementations to utilize this policy...

Being that the WG feels that just specifying a coverage policy is adequate,
but must get into specifying portions of the IPsec functionality, I would
prefer Tunnel mode, because as far as I can tell, no one has shown a
functional e-e transport mode implementation in the wild...

Can anyone point to one ?

Bill
+========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+
Bill Strahm     Software Development is a race between Programmers
Member of the   trying to build bigger and better idiot proof software
Technical Staff and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better
[email-masked] idiots.
(503) 601-0263  So far the Universe is winning --- Rich Cook

-----Original Message-----
From: Ofer Biran [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 11:53 AM
To: Bill Strahm
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision

Bill,

  Regards,
    Ofer

Ofer Biran

Ok,

Bill

-----Original Message-----

Saqib,

  Regards,
   Ofer

Ofer Biran

Saqib