[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SOI QUESTION: 4.1 Control channel vs. separate protocols
- To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
- Subject: Re: SOI QUESTION: 4.1 Control channel vs. separate protocols
- From: Jean-Jacques Puig <jean-jacques.puig@int-evry.fr>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:26:27 +0200 (MET DST)
- In-Reply-To: <E17Mqas-0004fv-00@think.thunk.org>
- Organization: =?UTF-8?B?RA==?= new, 55 unread, 85 total =?UTF-8?B?KDMxNS5hKQ==?=
- References: <E17Mqas-0004fv-00@think.thunk.org>
- Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> 4.1 Control channel vs. separate protocols
>
> 4.1.A) [Meta question, that will be answered by the other questions in
> section 4.] Does SOI need a control channel for SA management? Or is
> it acceptable to piggy back SA management as a part of other parts of
> the SOI protocol?
Setting a control channel seems reasonnable. It may be complex,
but management of SAs (multiple SA handling, SAs states...) is a strong
requirement, and the use of several protocols will mess it more.
However, such a control channel is not necessarily a phase 1 SA,
and a consistent approach must be followed concerning the control features
on this channel. Are control features listed in 4.1 of SOI features
comprehensive enough ? Are there other requirements for SA management ?
Does SOI need to be able to tackle with future requirements on this spot
at an expense of modularity ?
--
Jean-Jacques Puig