[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Racing QM Initiator's
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Radha Gowda wrote:
> >
> > Please note that until such a statement makes it into the rfc, what you
> > are doing may not be interoperable.
> >
>
> I fully understand that, and it had been my intention all along to find
> out how others deal with it.
>
> > Why is it such a problem to support both initiator and responder for both
> > phase 1 and phase 2 SA's? A robust implementation should be able to do
> > this.
>
> Since it is not spelt out in the RFC on how to handle race condition,
> different people could interpret it differently.
Well.. no. Rather, two people should NOT interpret this at all, but let it go
with 2 phase 1's (or phase 2's).
> I'd find it rather
> confusing to see two phase1 SAs between the same addresses.
I agree, and I like your solution, personally (I've thought about doing this
very same thing a few times), but it's not per-standard, so it's a dangerous
thing to do for interoperability reasons.
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?
jan
> But if that is
> the way it should be, we'll conform.
>
>
--
Jan Vilhuber vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose (408) 527-0847
Follow-Ups:
References: