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

Re: Racing QM Initiator's

To: svan@trustworks.com
Subject: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
From: Markku Savela <msa@anise.tte.vtt.fi>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:01:53 +0300 (EET DST)
CC: skelly@redcreek.com, dharkins@network-alchemy.com, Sankar@vpnet.com, vilhuber@cisco.com, bmccann@indusriver.com, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: <199910150644.KAA03616@relay1.trustworks.com> (svan@trustworks.com)
Reply-to: msa@hemuli.tte.vtt.fi (Markku Savela)
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

> But the question was (just for 
> curiosity): whether "self-connect" situation was considered by 
> protocol designers or not?

Isn't the use of loopback a traditional way to test protocols in
TCP/IP environment? So, specify security policy for the loopback
address 127.0.0.1 and fire a ping to it... How many ISAKMP
implementations survive and do the right thing? :)

-- 
Markku Savela (msa@hemuli.tte.vtt.fi), Technical Research Centre of Finland
Multimedia Systems, P.O.Box 1203,FIN-02044 VTT,http://www.vtt.fi/tte/staff/msa/

References:

Re: Racing QM Initiator's

From: "Valery Smyslov" <svan@trustworks.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
Next by Date: Re: PPP over IPSec (without L2TP)?
Prev by thread: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
Next by thread: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread