On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:00:26AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > In IKEv2, at any point, two Message IDs are being juggled: > - the ID of SA's last message request > - the ID of SA's last message response > > hence, a single .st_msgid which can be traced back to IKEv1 isn't > sufficient. Instead IKEv2 should be using the fields: > > /* message ID sequence for things we send (as initiator) */ > msgid_t st_msgid_lastack; /* last one peer > acknowledged - host order */ > msgid_t st_msgid_nextuse; /* next one to use - > host order */ > /* message ID sequence for things we receive (as responder) */ > msgid_t st_msgid_lastrecv; /* last one peer sent - > Host order v2 only */ > msgid_t st_msgid_lastreplied; /* to decide retransmit > CREATE_CHILD_SA */
we are tracking 3. I wonder if we should track 4. Initiating an exchange: st_v2_msgid_nextuse st_v2_msgid_lastack responding to an exchange st_v2_msgid_lastreplied I think it would be nice to have st_v2_mstid_last_received /* received but not replied yet */ > Given this, I'm planning on renaming .st_msgid (and likely the above). > Since we've settled on v[12]* as the name prefix convention several > new names come to mind: > > - st_v1_msgid st_v1_msgid > (PS: I've also a strong preference for sticking v2 somewhere in any > v2-only thing as that way I know it isn't generic and may have to > handle ikev1) my preference is use as first prefix or the second. The one in md would become msgid_t v2_msgid_received ? -antony _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
