IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Racing QM Initiator's

Ben McCann <bmccann@indusriver.com> Wed, 13 October 1999 23:23 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by mail.imc.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17198; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA25303 Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:04:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3805023F.DD18AACE@indusriver.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:05:51 -0400
From: Ben McCann <bmccann@indusriver.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vipul Gupta <Vipul.Gupta@Eng.Sun.Com>
CC: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, vipul.gupta@sun.com
Subject: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
References: <199910132130.OAA04907@hsmpka.eng.sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

>   But aren't these two messages going out with different message IDs
>   generated randomly by each Phase II initiator? If so, why is there
>   a problem ? This will result in two IPSec SAs where one would have
>   been sufficient but I don't view that as catastrophic.
>   
>   What am I missing?
>   
>   vipul

Nothing, they do have separate message ID's but our implementation
is getting confused about being a QM responder and initiator on
separate QM exchanges at the same time. I'll just have to fix it...

I just wanted to verify that the expected behavior is that you
must be able to support multiple QM exchanges simultaneously.

Feedback from the list has made that abundantly clear....

-Ben McCann

-- 
Ben McCann                              Indus River Networks
                                        31 Nagog Park
                                        Acton, MA, 01720
email: bmccann@indusriver.com           web: www.indusriver.com 
phone: (978) 266-8140                   fax: (978) 266-8111

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status