draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-10.txt		draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-11.txt
	Network Working Group C. Hopps		Network Working Group C. Hopps
	Internet-Draft LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		Internet-Draft LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	Intended status: Standards Track September 3, 2021		Intended status: Standards Track October 24, 2021
	Expires: March 7, 2022		Expires: April 27, 2022
	IP-TFS: Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for ESP and its Use for IP		IP-TFS: Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for ESP and its Use for IP
	Traffic Flow Security		Traffic Flow Security
	draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-10		draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-11
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes a mechanism for aggregation and fragmentation		This document describes a mechanism for aggregation and fragmentation
	of IP packets when they are being encapsulated in ESP payload. This		of IP packets when they are being encapsulated in ESP payload. This
	new payload type can be used for various purposes such as decreasing		new payload type can be used for various purposes such as decreasing
	encapsulation overhead for small IP packets; however, the focus in		encapsulation overhead for small IP packets; however, the focus in
	this document is to enhance IPsec traffic flow security (IP-TFS) by		this document is to enhance IPsec traffic flow security (IP-TFS) by
	adding Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) to encrypted IP		adding Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) to encrypted IP
	encapsulated traffic. TFC is provided by obscuring the size and		encapsulated traffic. TFC is provided by obscuring the size and
	skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2022.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 12, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 14 ¶
	2.5. Summary of Receiver Processing		2.5. Summary of Receiver Processing
	An AGGFRAG enabled SA receiver has a few tasks to perform.		An AGGFRAG enabled SA receiver has a few tasks to perform.
	The receiver first reorders, possibly out-of-order ESP packets		The receiver first reorders, possibly out-of-order ESP packets
	received on an SA into in-sequence-order AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payloads		received on an SA into in-sequence-order AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payloads
	(Section 2.2.3). If congestion control is enabled, the receiver		(Section 2.2.3). If congestion control is enabled, the receiver
	considers a packet lost when it's sequence number is abandoned (e.g.,		considers a packet lost when it's sequence number is abandoned (e.g.,
	pushed out of the re-ordering window, or timed-out) by the reordering		pushed out of the re-ordering window, or timed-out) by the reordering
	algorithm.		algorithm. As an optional optimization (e.g., to handle very lossy
			and/or reordered tunnel paths), the receiver MAY transmit any fully
			formed inner packets contained within the AGGFRAG_PAYLOADs prior to
			re-ordering the outer packets.
	Additionally, if congestion control is enabled, the receiver sends		Additionally, if congestion control is enabled, the receiver sends
	congestion control data (Section 6.1.2) back to the sender as		congestion control data (Section 6.1.2) back to the sender as
	described in Section 2.4.2 and Section 3.		described in Section 2.4.2 and Section 3.
	Finally, the receiver processes the now in-order AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD		Finally, the receiver processes the now in-order AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD
	payload stream to extract the inner-packets (Section 2.2.3,		payload stream to extract the inner-packets (Section 2.2.3,
	Section 6.1).		Section 6.1).
	3. Congestion Information		3. Congestion Information
	skipping to change at page 27, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 27, line 32 ¶
	OH = NF * (IPsec Overhead + Outer Payload Size)		OH = NF * (IPsec Overhead + Outer Payload Size)
	- Inner Packet Size		- Inner Packet Size
	C.2. Overhead Comparison		C.2. Overhead Comparison
	The following tables collect the overhead values for some common L3		The following tables collect the overhead values for some common L3
	MTU sizes in order to compare them. The first table is the number of		MTU sizes in order to compare them. The first table is the number of
	octets of overhead for a given L3 MTU sized packet. The second table		octets of overhead for a given L3 MTU sized packet. The second table
	is the percentage of overhead in the same MTU sized packet.		is the percentage of overhead in the same MTU sized packet.
	XXX rerun these.
	Type ESP+Pad ESP+Pad ESP+Pad IP-TFS IP-TFS IP-TFS		Type ESP+Pad ESP+Pad ESP+Pad IP-TFS IP-TFS IP-TFS
	L3 MTU 576 1500 9000 576 1500 9000		L3 MTU 576 1500 9000 576 1500 9000
	PSize 522 1446 8946 518 1442 8942		PSize 522 1446 8946 518 1442 8942
	-----------------------------------------------------------		-----------------------------------------------------------
	40 482 1406 8906 4.5 1.6 0.3		40 482 1406 8906 4.5 1.6 0.3
	128 394 1318 8818 14.3 5.1 0.8		128 394 1318 8818 14.3 5.1 0.8
	256 266 1190 8690 28.7 10.3 1.7		256 266 1190 8690 28.7 10.3 1.7
	518 4 928 8428 58.0 20.8 3.4		518 4 928 8428 58.0 20.8 3.4
	576 576 870 8370 64.5 23.2 3.7		576 576 870 8370 64.5 23.2 3.7
	1442 286 4 7504 161.5 58.0 9.4		1442 286 4 7504 161.5 58.0 9.4
	skipping to change at page 30, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 30, line 28 ¶
	Notice that the latency values are very similar between the two		Notice that the latency values are very similar between the two
	solutions; however, whereas IP-TFS provides for constant high		solutions; however, whereas IP-TFS provides for constant high
	bandwidth, in some cases even exceeding native Ethernet, ESP with		bandwidth, in some cases even exceeding native Ethernet, ESP with
	padding often greatly reduces available bandwidth.		padding often greatly reduces available bandwidth.
	Appendix D. Acknowledgements		Appendix D. Acknowledgements
	We would like to thank Don Fedyk for help in reviewing and editing		We would like to thank Don Fedyk for help in reviewing and editing
	this work. We would also like to thank Michael Richardson, Sean		this work. We would also like to thank Michael Richardson, Sean
	Turner and Valery Smyslov for reviews and many suggestions for		Turner, Valery Smyslov and Tero Kivinen for reviews and many
	improvements, as well as Joseph Touch for the transport area review		suggestions for improvements, as well as Joseph Touch for the
	and suggested improvements.		transport area review and suggested improvements.
	Appendix E. Contributors		Appendix E. Contributors
	The following people made significant contributions to this document.		The following people made significant contributions to this document.
	Lou Berger		Lou Berger
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	Email: lberger@labn.net		Email: lberger@labn.net
End of changes. 6 change blocks.
	10 lines changed or deleted		11 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/