Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> writes:

If there really is no way to work around this, I suppose we just require 
retransmissions of CC info reports until
they are ACKd or things are torn down b/c of drops (i.e., normal INFO 
exchange). It does feel like we are
adding fragility here that isn’t really needed though. It makes the functioning 
of the unidirectional tunnel
depend more heavily on the reverse direction traffic working when that isn’t 
actually needed for the tunnel to
operate.

Yes, don't break IKE core things.

I was hoping there would be an openness to possible improvements, and wasn't 
looking to just break well established protocols. An earlier mail from Paul 
made it sound like other use-cases have wanted for expanded functionality as 
well.

This isn't a blocker for this work, so if other people agree that it's not 
worth trying to improve IKE to support this use case, we can just conform 
rather than try to improve things.

Thanks,
Chris.


Regards,
Valery.

Thanks,
Chris.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to