Re: [IPsec] [furry13/ipsecme-esp-ping] Abandoning non-reserved SPIs (PR #6)

2024-02-27 Thread Michael Richardson
Jen Linkova wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 7:12 AM Michael Richardson > wrote: >> In github issue: https://github.com/furry13/ipsecme-esp-ping/pull/6 >> >> I said: >I am not in favour of any link to IKE. >> >> I don't think it's useful to signal in IKE that the host

Re: [IPsec] [furry13/ipsecme-esp-ping] Abandoning non-reserved SPIs (PR #6)

2024-02-27 Thread Jen Linkova
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 7:12 AM Michael Richardson wrote: > In github issue: > https://github.com/furry13/ipsecme-esp-ping/pull/6 > > I said: > >I am not in favour of any link to IKE. > > I don't think it's useful to signal in IKE that the host/gateway supports > SPI=7. > I believe in many debug

Re: [IPsec] [furry13/ipsecme-esp-ping] Abandoning non-reserved SPIs (PR #6)

2024-02-27 Thread Michael Richardson
In github issue: https://github.com/furry13/ipsecme-esp-ping/pull/6 I said: >I am not in favour of any link to IKE. I don't think it's useful to signal in IKE that the host/gateway supports SPI=7. I believe in many debug situations, the person doing the diagnostics won't have a credential that t