1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738 |
- Here documents known IPsec corner cases which need to be keep in mind when
- deploy various IPsec configuration in real world production environment.
- 1. IPcomp: Small IP packet won't get compressed at sender, and failed on
- policy check on receiver.
- Quote from RFC3173:
- 2.2. Non-Expansion Policy
- If the total size of a compressed payload and the IPComp header, as
- defined in section 3, is not smaller than the size of the original
- payload, the IP datagram MUST be sent in the original non-compressed
- form. To clarify: If an IP datagram is sent non-compressed, no
- IPComp header is added to the datagram. This policy ensures saving
- the decompression processing cycles and avoiding incurring IP
- datagram fragmentation when the expanded datagram is larger than the
- MTU.
- Small IP datagrams are likely to expand as a result of compression.
- Therefore, a numeric threshold should be applied before compression,
- where IP datagrams of size smaller than the threshold are sent in the
- original form without attempting compression. The numeric threshold
- is implementation dependent.
- Current IPComp implementation is indeed by the book, while as in practice
- when sending non-compressed packet to the peer(whether or not packet len
- is smaller than the threshold or the compressed len is large than original
- packet len), the packet is dropped when checking the policy as this packet
- matches the selector but not coming from any XFRM layer, i.e., with no
- security path. Such naked packet will not eventually make it to upper layer.
- The result is much more wired to the user when ping peer with different
- payload length.
- One workaround is try to set "level use" for each policy if user observed
- above scenario. The consequence of doing so is small packet(uncompressed)
- will skip policy checking on receiver side.
|