Re:
"Prof. Ahmed Bin Abbas Ahmed Ali Adas" <alaadas@kaau.edu.sa> Thu, 11 April 2002 11:39 UTC
Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g3BBdhm23793; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 04:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA22987 Thu, 11 Apr 2002 05:29:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <002c01c1e13d$00c5c420$ed551ad4@natasha>
From: "Prof. Ahmed Bin Abbas Ahmed Ali Adas" <alaadas@kaau.edu.sa>
To: Steven Rosonina <steven_rosonina@yahoo.com>
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
References: <20020410125059.65759.qmail@web11303.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:41:03 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01C1E156.2467BD20"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Disposition-Notification-To: "Prof. Ahmed Bin Abbas Ahmed Ali Adas" <alaadas@kaau.edu.sa>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Hi one would say that the checksum in UDP ( 2 bytes) is used for verifying the UDP packet (header+data). Since IKE is using The Diffe-Hellman protocol for key management, I do not see why IKE should use the 2 bytes of UDP cheksum. After all UDP is not session oriented. Ahmed alaadas@kaau.edu.sa ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Rosonina To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 3:50 PM Hello all, Could anyone please tell me if IKE exchanges use the optional 16 Bit UDP checksum. I assume it probably does. I am just having a difficult time confirming. Thanks in advance! ===== Steven Rosonina 634 Arboretum Way Burlington, MA 01803 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- Steven Rosonina
- Re: Prof. Ahmed Bin Abbas Ahmed Ali Adas
- IKE vs UDP checksum. Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: IKE vs UDP checksum. Prof. Ahmed Bin Abbas Ahmed Ali Adas