Re: Racing QM Initiator's

[Radha Gowda <[e-mail]>]

"Scott G. Kelly" wrote:

> Radha Gowda wrote:
> >
> > > To the list at large:
> > >
> > > Why can't we put verbiage like this into the RFC? Is there some reason this
> > > is a bad thing to do?
> >
> > I also would like to point out to the list that Diffie-Hellman calculation does
> > not
> > come cheap for some of us (atleast for now).
>
> I think the point is that we must be able to support independent
> simultaneous SAs between security gateways. Otherwise, how will we
> provide PFS? If you cannot handle the DH calculation, then I suppose
> that you can serialize these, but this is not a good argument for
> dumbing down the standard, is it?
>
> Scott

Well, I was not exactly dumbing down the standard.   I was talking
of a scenario where neither side had phase1 SA to its peer, but
had an outstanding request.   I was not arbitrarily dropping the
sessions either and was basically trying to get our routers to
interoperate  with each other efficiently.