[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ISAKMP SA negotiation
There is the implicit assumption that the two parties want to talk to each
other...
p.s. if you don't like the proposals you can generate traps ;-)
At 02:53 PM 7/3/97 PDT, you wrote:
>
>Text item: Text Item
>
>
>This does seem a bit strange. The initiator could just send out its favorite
>proposal and test for a response. The responder could wait until it sees its
>favorite proposal and perhaps accept a proposal it once rejected. If the
>initiator and the responder were being very competative and selfish, one
could
>image the parties holding out on accepting proposals until it gets what it
>wants, playing a variant on the game of chicken. How would one prevent this?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ipsec@portal.ex.tis.com
>Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 1997 1:53 PM
>To: ipsec@tis.com
>Subject: Re: ISAKMP SA negotiation
>
>> That might be what you'd do but my implmementation chooses P2. In the
>> example, B has his own policy priority settings; he wants P2 over P1.
>> In fact, if A offered P1, P2, P3, P4 and B wanted P4, P2, P1, P3, B
>> would select P4. I never let someone else override my local policy. It
>> was set like that for a reason.
>
>And what was that reason? :-)
>
>If A offered P1, you'd select P1.
>If A offered P2, you'd select P2.
>If A offered P3, you'd select P3.
>But if A offered P1,P2,P3,P4 you'd select P4.
>
>
>
>
>
References: