Re: [IPsec] FW: I-D Action:draft-nir-ike-nochild-00.txt

Hi Yoav, On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > Hi Raj > > On Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:44 PM, Raj Singh wrote: > > Hi Yoav, > > > > 1. In section5, why we need N[ADDITIONAL_TS_POSSIBLE] when we want > > to create child sa? > > We don't. That comes from (note careful enough) cut-and-p

Re: [IPsec] Inconsistent usage of SA

Hi Emre, IKE SA is bi-directional i.e. one SA is used in both directions, initiator to responder and responder to initiator. CHILD_SAs i.e. IPsec SAs (AH, ESP) are uni-directional, one in each direction. So we 2 IPsec SAs per connection. Thanks, Raj On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Gunduzhan, Em

Re: [IPsec] FW: I-D Action:draft-nir-ike-nochild-00.txt

Hi Raj On Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:44 PM, Raj Singh wrote: > Hi Yoav, > > 1. In section5, why we need N[ADDITIONAL_TS_POSSIBLE] when we want > to create child sa? We don't. That comes from (note careful enough) cut-and-paste. Good catch. > 2. Also, please mention clearly in draft that w