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

Re: Selection of proposals

To: rohit <rohit@trinc.com>
Subject: Re: Selection of proposals
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:29:32 -0500
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981105125211.00714fe4@172.16.1.10>
References: <v04011726b266ceba5fb8@[128.89.31.126]><3.0.1.32.19981103173528.0074e680@172.16.1.10>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Rohit,

I have to admit that I cannot follow the example, to understand what was
desired vs. what was negotiated and what the problem was. There are too
many indefinate atencedents in the text.  Please restate the problem in the
following terms:

	Relevant outbound SPD entries for SG1. The entries should be
described in terms of selectors, required protocols, and algorithms.  (The
term "proposal" does not relate to an SPD entry, it's an IKE term, so I
can't figure out what you're referring to.)

	Relevant inbound SPD entries for SG2 and H2, as above.

	IKE proposals sent by SG1 to SG2, and the response from SG2.  Then,
with that SA in place, IKE proposals sent by SG1 to H2, and H2's response.
Then the resulting pair of iterated tunnels, and why this result does not
match what SG2's SPD called for.

Steve

References:

Re: Selection of proposals

From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Selection of proposals

From: rohit <rohit@trinc.com>

Re: Selection of proposals

From: rohit <rohit@trinc.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Selection of proposals
Next by Date: Re: minor inconsistency in arch doc (maybe)
Next by thread: marketing misuse of IPSECond efforts
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread