: > The text you quote are from the section dealing with delete
: > notifications. But since the RFC doesn't specify what to do with
: > INVALID_SPI I think this is a _reasonable_ assumption, especially
: > since this is what is says about it:
:
: It is better not to assume people do things same way unless explictly
: specified, which is why I think the new high availibility protocol
: needs to have text explaining these situations. I do not really care
: which way the text is written as long as it is there and tells how to
: handle these situations.
:
I agree, we want the text to the draft.
: > : B2 does not know anything about it and host A tries to send traffic
: > : to that SA.
: > :
: > INVALID_SPI fixes (assuming we agree its handling). Delete notification
: > fixes too but will result into half-closed SA for the A's inbound SA. The
: > host A will never receive any traffic to that SA.
:
: I agree on that. Adding text for INVALID_SPI handling would most
: likely be best.
:
Good, I agree on that too, INVALID_SPI is best way to go.
: > I don't see anything that prevents working connections.
:
: But in some cases there is leftover half-closed SAs which by IKEv2 the
: other end cannot delete without deleting the whole IKE SA. We might
: need some way to resolve those.
:
Yeah, one or two cases may lead to this. I guess it wouldn't be so
terrible to do what RFC says and just delete the IKE SA in these cases.
Pekka
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
