From: Kazunori Miyazawa <kazunori@miyazawa.org>
To: davem@redhat.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org
Subject: a question about XFRM_POLICY_FWD
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:50:03 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41BE2AAB.1070904@miyazawa.org> (raw)
Hello,
I would like to ask about meaning of XFRM_POLICY_FWD,
although a question may have been asked before.
I configured IPsec tunnel and thought XFRM_POLICY_FWD
might be confusing.
A forwarding policy which is represent with XFRM_POLICY_FWD
in the kernel affects only in-comming forwarding packet.
The policy does not affect out-going forwarding packet and
input packet to a security gateway itself.
If we want to connect network 2001:DB8:1::/64 and 2001:DB8:3::/64
with SGW(A) and SGW(B),
---------------SGW(A)==================SGW(B)---------
2001:DB8:1::/64 2001:DB8:2::/64 2001:DB8:3::/64
=== represents IPsec tunnel
--- represents a network behind SGW.
The addresses of each SGW are:
SGW(A) internal address 2001:DB8:1::A/64
SGW(A) external address 2001:DB8:2::A/64
SGW(B) external address 2001:DB8:2::B/64
SGW(B) internal address 2001:DB8:3::B/64
We need to configure policies in SGW(A) which are represent with setkey command are
spdadd 2001:DB8:1::/64 2001:DB8:3::/64 any -P out ipsec esp/tunnel/2001:DB8:2::A-2001:DB82::B/require;
spdadd 2001:DB8:3::/64 2001:DB8:1::/64 any -P fwd ipsec esp/tunnel/2001:DB8:2::B-2001:DB82::A/require;
However, the above policies does not allow SGW(A) to receive packest from 2001:DB8:3::/64 to
2001:DB8:1::A/64 because there is no policy for "INPUT".
To let the packet reach 2001:DB8:1::A, we needs an additional policy
spdadd 2001:DB8:3::/64 2001:DB8:1::A/128 any -P in ipsec esp/tunnel/2001:DB8:2::B-2001:DB82::A/require;
Totally, we need three policies for the configuration in a SGW.
I think , from the point of view of user or administrator, why forward does not allow the packet instead
2001:DB8:1::A is included in network 2001:DB8:1::/64. And I also think why I can not configure out-going
forward policy with "fwd". Anyway XFRM_POLICY_FWD or "fwd" might be confusing.
What does XFRM_POLICY_FWD or direction="forward" means in the architecture design?
Of course I know the implementation :-p
P.S.
IMHO,
We should remove or obsolete XFRM_POLICY_FORWARD and use XFRM_POLICY_IN instead of it.
or
We should lookup out-going forwarding packet with XFRM_POLICY_FORWARD.
--
Kazunori Miyazawa
reply other threads:[~2004-12-13 23:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41BE2AAB.1070904@miyazawa.org \
--to=kazunori@miyazawa.org \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).