Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer t
Hi Steffen,
> > > Valery Smyslov wrote:
> > > > My main problem with the draft is the concept of "Fallback SA".
> > > This SA
> > > > is treated specially in the draft, which I don't think is
> > > > necessary. For example, it must always be up so that the outgoing
> > > > packet
Hi Steffen,
[snipped]
> > My main problem with the draft is the concept of "Fallback SA". This SA is
> > treated specially in the draft,
> > which I don't think is necessary. For example, it must always be up so that
> > the outgoing packet can
> > always be sent in case per-CPU SA does not exi
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions WG of
the IETF.
Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow
Security
Authors : Don Fedyk
Hi Eric
Thanks for you Review. We have posted an updated draft 07 to address your
comments.
Note I Revalidated the MIB with the changes, but I realized I didn’t update the
tree in the draft. So, I have one pending change, but I will wait and see if we
satisfied your points.
See [Don] Bel
Don
You were faster than the light ;-)
Indeed, the changes are ok for me and, more important, I do believe that they
have improved the document. I also noticed that the tree is not updated, but I
will trust you (and your AD) on this point. I will clear my DISCUSS shortly.
Thank you for your re
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions WG of
the IETF.
Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow
Security
Authors : Don Fedyk
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Valery Smyslov wrote:
[leaving cache/linux implementation details to Steffen to answer]
Another issue that is not clear from the draft -
how per-CPU SAs are created. Consider the situation when
an outgoing packet is handled by a CPU
and there is no per-CPU Sa to handle it.
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-08: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
I think that the point is that even if there are n CPUs, that a sensibly
designed system might well have n+1 SAs active.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi John
Please see [Don] inline:
Thanks
Don
-Original Message-
From: John Scudder via Datatracker
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-08: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
ad
Hi Don,
If I understand you right, the answer on the security section amounts to “it’s
just the standard boilerplate, John”. ;-) Which is fine — I was really more
curious than anything else, there’s nothing wrong about the text in question,
it just seems superfluous in this context.
I’m fine
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Valery Smyslov wrote:
implementation with say 10 CPUs. Does it make any difference for this
implementation
If it receives CPU_QUEUES with 100 or with 1000? It seems to me that in both
cases
it will follow its own local policy for limiting the number of per-CPU SAs,
most pr
14 matches
Mail list logo
