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

Re: QoS selectors (was LAST CALL: IKE)

To: "jpickering@creeksidenet.com" <jpickering@creeksidenet.com>
Subject: Re: QoS selectors (was LAST CALL: IKE)
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:39:09 -0400
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <3F00526A.3060705@creeksidenet.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030626101831.00a96bb0@email><3F00526A.3060705@creeksidenet.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

At 11:08 AM -0400 6/30/03, jpickering@creeksidenet.com wrote:
>Re: multiple "redundant" SAs:
>In order to support simultaneous rekey tie-breaking as currently 
>defined, one needs to be able to be able to determine
>if the attempt to create a child is a rekey and if so, which SA is 
>being rekeyed. The only way to do this per current
>version is to examine the traffic selectors which presumes no redundant SAs.
>
>- Jeff
>

Whoops!

Any suggestions on how to avoid messing up the rekey heuristic and 
not negotiating the DiffServ values for SAs?

Steve

References:
- Re: QoS selectors (was LAST CALL: IKE)
  - From: Mark Duffy <mduffy@quarrytech.com>
- Re: QoS selectors (was LAST CALL: IKE)
  - From: "jpickering@creeksidenet.com" <jpickering@creeksidenet.com>

Prev by Date: Re: IKEv2: active user identity protection
Next by Date: Re: IKE negotiation for fragmentation controls in IPsec
Prev by thread: Re: QoS selectors (was LAST CALL: IKE)
Next by thread: Re: QoS selectors (was LAST CALL: IKE)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread