IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Simultaneous Child SA Creation tigger from both the side.

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 05 May 2014 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066E51A047C for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gfdN-YsQC8LK for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 12:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a29.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5D61A0452 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 12:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a29.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a29.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21007674058 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 12:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=6CnpMOG4RZacSh2wHjVb WpMqM8E=; b=hehCSZ17W4IHo+of38x71DSq7Mn4V5YY3ZbxVo4l/5HZkmYvJEYn TMBUI6xuGH8CFozAixzl/K5Kw71LV1oHMPT2FkZ86yc1kbb+BkCYJoKAOejl6WA3 Li7WGsnBCYXMTr78JWcnxXHSNiHw64Gasv2PjrZO5nvNntVfpBSOlDM=
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a29.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C92CB674060 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 12:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m15so4398698wgh.4 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 May 2014 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.221.8 with SMTP id qa8mr17376151wic.39.1399319599626; Mon, 05 May 2014 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.29.200 with HTTP; Mon, 5 May 2014 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <335B84BDA2818C428E63D9B0ADE6863545AF7A1A@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <mailman.101.1398884441.30377.ipsec@ietf.org> <335B84BDA2818C428E63D9B0ADE6863545AF7228@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DE8FB8A9-23C6-4828-9129-2B70542F96ED@gmail.com> <335B84BDA2818C428E63D9B0ADE6863545AF7A1A@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 14:53:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiMRdSsNTufLAdjxWMvbjqHAYweVDdPRh=hSf8BpBU7nw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Syed Ajim Hussain <syedah@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/b0KNlyR-PkcNIIDZJynqU0_4P6Q
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Simultaneous Child SA Creation tigger from both the side.
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 19:53:26 -0000

On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Syed Ajim Hussain <syedah@huawei.com> wrote:
>        Thanks for your reply, This problem happened in real scenario,  problem is-  both the Tunnel end points are different vendor,
>        They handle it differently.

Near as I can tell there are two possible behaviors: two (or more)
sets of SAs, or one set with each exchange resulting in new SAs that
replace the old ones.  If other behaviors result, I'd like to hear it!

>        We can defined this behavior in RFC,

If the two behaviors result straightforwardly from the RFC as it
stands and local implementation choices, then I don't see a need to
"define", just describe.  Publishing a new RFC to describe this seems
a bit wasteful of resources.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email