[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Racing QM Initiator's
"Scott G. Kelly" wrote:
> Radha Gowda wrote:
> >
> > > To the list at large:
> > >
> > > Why can't we put verbiage like this into the RFC? Is there some reason this
> > > is a bad thing to do?
> >
> > I also would like to point out to the list that Diffie-Hellman calculation does
> > not
> > come cheap for some of us (atleast for now).
>
> I think the point is that we must be able to support independent
> simultaneous SAs between security gateways. Otherwise, how will we
> provide PFS? If you cannot handle the DH calculation, then I suppose
> that you can serialize these, but this is not a good argument for
> dumbing down the standard, is it?
>
> Scott
Well, I was not exactly dumbing down the standard. I was talking
of a scenario where neither side had phase1 SA to its peer, but
had an outstanding request. I was not arbitrarily dropping the
sessions either and was basically trying to get our routers to
interoperate with each other efficiently.
References: