[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issues from the bakeoff
At 12:23 PM 6/16/99 +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> Well-known CPI is not very friendly with PFKEY interface (RFC2367).
> RFC2367 expects unique SPI per peer (which can embed CPI in lower
> 2 bytes), but for well-known CPI we can't.
Following the IPsec list, one must come to the realization that
PFKEY-friendly isn't the characteristic of several protocols,
nor it is a requirement. So, IPComp isn't alone.
> What kind of userland API do you expect to see? I'm now using dummy
> SPI (= CPI) to designate the SA database entry for compression,
> and add a flag to force the use of well-known CPI on the packet.
The RFC reflects the decision of the ippcp wg in the meeting
in Washington, DC (Dec 97)
It was also decided not to restrict the CPI values 0-63 only for manual
setup but also use it for ISAKMP for well known algorithms.
I don't recall any discussion in the wg or on the list regarding
"userland API." If the API doesn't fit the protocols, shouldn't
the API be adjusted?
avram
Follow-Ups:
References: