[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What do you do in case of initiate collisions?
Daniel Harkins wrote:
:
> > > > >We're running into a bit of a problem and haven't found any specific
> > > > >answers. Basically, we need to know how people are resolving the
> > > > >problem where two systems start overlapping exchange sessions to
> > > > >each other (the cross in the mail syndrome).
> > > > >
> > > > >It looks something like this
> > > > >
> > > > >A ----> B (A initiates a session with B)
> > > > >A <---- B (B initiates a session with A)
> > >
> > > Can A simply assume that B is responding?
> >
> > If the request packet from B proposes two or more
> > transforms, how should A respond to the "response"?
>
> He should respond the same way as if this message from A was the only one.
> Depending on the proposal #'s in the SA you decide whether it's a logical
> AND or a logical OR of the transforms and select accordingly.
>
> The fact that A is simultaneously initiating with B will also not impact
> this one bit. Each side chooses a M-ID to identify the transient state
> that a Quick Mode entails. A knows that the first message from B is, in
> fact, a new initial request and not a response to his initial request.
> The two exchanges progress independently.
I know the two exchanges progress independently.
The problem is I don't want two set of SAs, and
I'd like to know how people would get only one
set of SAs.
I think
Lewis McCarthy wrote:
> If so, we could just make a rule that
> (say) the party with the lexicographically "larger" ID drops its
> session initiation, and continues with the session initiated by the
> "smaller" ID'ed party.
could be the answer of my question. And I'd like to see this kind of
words in the document.
Shin
Follow-Ups:
References: