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

IPCOMP

To: IP Security List <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Subject: IPCOMP
From: "Mason, David" <David_Mason@nai.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 03:14:17 -0700
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

When negotiating IPCOMP is it standard practice to specify an spi size of
zero in the IKE proposal payload when a well-known CPI should be used?   If
an spi size of 4 is used, should the least (or most) significant 16 bits of
the spi in the proposal be used as the CPI or should the corresponding
well-known CPI of the transform selected be used instead?   If the spi
conflicts with the transform selected should the proposal be rejected (for
instance there are multiple transforms and the spi corresponds to the
well-known CPI of one of the transfoms but an alternate transform is
selected)?  Are people using the spi in the proposal payload to specify the
CPI?

-dave

Prev by Date: Re: ISP's who assign unrouteable addresses
Next by Date: RE: IKE transport (was INITIAL-CONTACT issues)
Prev by thread: RE: ISP's who assign unrouteable addresses
Next by thread: New XAUTH draft
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread