Re: Racing QM Initiator's

[Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com>]

>>>>> "Radha" == Radha Gowda <rxg@openroute.com> writes:

 >> 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?

 Radha> I also would like to point out to the list that Diffie-Hellman
 Radha> calculation does not come cheap for some of us (atleast for
 Radha> now).

I don't think it comes cheap for anyone.

But so what?  There's a small timing window that causes two SA pairs
to be created rather than the normal one.  Given that the window is
small, the average amount of resources consumed by the existence of
that window is tiny.

As Will Price said, just deal with it.  It's not a problem.  It
doesn't need additional protocol machinery to sort out.  Additional
protocol machinery means additional bugs for no significant benefit.

	paul

---

References:

• Re: Racing QM Initiator's
• From: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>
• Re: Racing QM Initiator's
• From: Radha Gowda <rxg@openroute.com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Outbound interface as a selector?
• Next by Date: RE: Re[2]: 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