[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ipsec error protocol
- To: fd@cisco.com
- Subject: Re: ipsec error protocol
- From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:34:34 -0500
- Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
- In-Reply-To: <3A78C90B.7E8475D9@cisco.com>
- References: <LBELLCAPBPEPMOMELLJDAEEMCHAA.sankar@nexsi.com> <3A6FD6E4.93F510EE@cisco.com> <v04220807b69b8b5d68cd@[171.78.30.107]> <3A772CDF.4E0AEE26@cisco.com> <p05010404b69e4d1d3bb7@[128.33.4.39]><3A78C90B.7E8475D9@cisco.com>
- Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
At 3:25 AM +0100 2/1/01, Frédéric Detienne wrote:
>Stephen Kent wrote:
>> >Obviously, no retransmission of any sort nor any expectation in the
>> >order of arrival (replay detection stays as it is): we just ack the
>> >biggest packet ID received (piggy backed if possible).
>>
>> I have to admit that, at this point in the exchange (and trying to
>> deal with threads o other lists at the same time) that I'm lost. What
>> problem are we trying to solve? Is it the loss of state at the other
>> IPsec device, or the parallel crypto chip and sequence number problem
>> that Dan raised?
>
>the loss of state (and only that).
Thanks for the clarification.
Steve