[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SCTP and IPsec issues
>>>>> "Angelos" == Angelos D Keromytis <angelos@keromytis.org> writes:
>> As an alternative, it would be nice if the architecture said that the
>> mapping of SPD->SA was an N:1 mapping, then no textual change would be
>> necessary to support this.
Angelos> I don't think this is sufficient; after all, SPDs can currently
Angelos> do an
Angelos> N:1 mapping.
Why not?
>> It would also be nice if phase 2 SAs could be referenced in a consistent
>> way such that additional selectors could be *added* to an existing SA.
Angelos> I agree, although this has more to do with policy and thus
Angelos> should be brought up at the appropriate WG (and I don't want to
Angelos> complicate this document any more than I have to).
It seems like a strong requirement for SCTP as they want to be able to add
new interfaces, and I get the impression that they don't want to rekey during
this time.
] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|gigabit is no[
] Michael Richardson, Solidum Systems Oh where, oh where has|problem with[
] mcr@solidum.com www.solidum.com the little fishy gone?|PAX.port 1100[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
References: