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

Re: same SPI/different exchange

To: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: same SPI/different exchange
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@East.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:30:44 -0400
cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:07:28 PDT." <15205.52368.735204.207156@thomasm-u1.cisco.com>
Reply-to: sommerfeld@East.Sun.COM
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

> What is the intended behavior of IKE if you
> receive a proposal for a SPI which already exists?

If this happens, the peer is probably buggy ..

> Should the old one be deinstalled and the new one installed?

This sounds like the robust thing to do; I'd want to be careful to
ensure that the old and new instances were treated as "different"
(from the point of view any caching which might be going on..)

					- Bill

Follow-Ups:

Re: same SPI/different exchange

From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>

References:

same SPI/different exchange

From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: same SPI/different exchange
Next by Date: Re: same SPI/different exchange
Next by thread: AH length field, and derivation of name "SKEYID"
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread