[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issues from the bakeoff
>>>>> "Tero" == Tero Kivinen <kivinen@ssh.fi> writes:
Tero> Paul Koning writes:
>> >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Harkins <dharkins@network-alchemy.com> writes:
Dan> - Is it OK to send 3 copies of every single message (which one
Dan> implementation was doing)? Yes.
>> Similarly, the IKE spec doesn't specifically prohibit sending 3
>> copies of the message because, I submit, no one thought that
>> anyone would be silly enough to do this, so it wasn't necessary to
>> make a specific rule "don't do this silly thing". But I would
>> certainly call this implementation broken.
Tero> It might also be that the other end used 100 ms retranmission
Tero> timers, that was doubled every time, so the first retry was
Tero> sent 100 ms after first packet, second retry 200 ms after the
Tero> second packet, and third one 400 ms after the second packet
Tero> etc.
Tero> If it took about a second from the other end to process the
Tero> packet what he sees is that he is receiving three copies of
Tero> every packet.
Possible. But while some packets take some time (D-H and the like)
others don't. So if you're seeing three copies of ALL packets, this
explanation doesn't fit well.
Tero> Anyways sending each packet 3 times should matter, because
Tero> every implementation MUST be able to interoperate with such
Tero> system.
Of course, and I never said otherwise. But that doesn't mean that a
system that always sends three copies of a packet should be considered
sane or normal, any more than a TCP stack that did this would be.
paul
Follow-Ups:
References: