[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: replay field size

To: Dan.McDonald@Eng.sun.com (Dan McDonald)
Subject: RE: replay field size
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:09:22 -0500
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <199702111926.LAA13021@kebe.eng.sun.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Dan,

	I agree that one can negotiate the counter size during SA
negotiation, so the issues is not one of steady state overhead.  The issue
is one of added complexity in the implementation, which is greater if we
support two counter sizes vs. a single counter size. We can debate just how
much complexity is involved, but first I suggest that we explore what
motivates any added complexity.

Steve

References:

RE: replay field size

From: Dan.McDonald@Eng.sun.com (Dan McDonald)

Prev by Date: Re: replay field size
Next by Date: Re: replay field size
Prev by thread: RE: replay field size
Next by thread: RE: replay field size
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread