Re: Racing QM Initiator's

Markku Savela <msa@anise.tte.vtt.fi> Fri, 15 October 1999 09:37 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 CAA21901; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 02:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA02951 Fri, 15 Oct 1999 03:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:01:53 +0300
From: Markku Savela <msa@anise.tte.vtt.fi>
Message-Id: <199910150801.LAA05477@anise.tte.vtt.fi>
To: svan@trustworks.com
CC: skelly@redcreek.com, dharkins@network-alchemy.com, Sankar@vpnet.com, vilhuber@cisco.com, bmccann@indusriver.com, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: <199910150644.KAA03616@relay1.trustworks.com> (svan@trustworks.com)
Subject: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
Reply-to: msa@hemuli.tte.vtt.fi
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

> But the question was (just for 
> curiosity): whether "self-connect" situation was considered by 
> protocol designers or not?

Isn't the use of loopback a traditional way to test protocols in
TCP/IP environment? So, specify security policy for the loopback
address 127.0.0.1 and fire a ping to it... How many ISAKMP
implementations survive and do the right thing? :)

-- 
Markku Savela (msa@hemuli.tte.vtt.fi) Technical Research Centre of Finland
Multimedia Systems, P.O.Box 1203,FIN-02044 VTT,http://www.vtt.fi/tte/staff/msa/