On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 01:54, Antony Antony wrote:
> Here is my attempt to fix it. I guess there more attempts Paul and Andrew
> has their own? I didnt commit because there more happening around. May be
> combine and take the best.
>
> During rekey on the responder this patch validate TS before t
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
Here is my attempt to fix it. I guess there more attempts Paul and Andrew
has their own?
You didn't guess, you replied and you you would read it later. But it
seems you forgot.
I didnt commit because there more happening around. May be
combine and ta
I've seen it only once. Normally what happens is:
- the state machine assigns the IKE_AUTH request's Message ID to the IKE SA
- the CHILD SA is created
- the IKE AUTH Message ID is switched to the child
- MD.ST is switched to the child
- a message is recorded
- the STF_OK (and STF_FAIL) sends the
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:44:36AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
>
> > Here is my attempt to fix it. I guess there more attempts Paul and Andrew
> > has their own?
>
> You didn't guess, you replied and you you would read it later. But it
> seems you forgot
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:45:56AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 01:54, Antony Antony wrote:
>
> Here is my attempt to fix it. I guess there more attempts Paul and Andrew
> has their own? I didnt commit because there more happening around. May be
> combine
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 06:21:02PM +0200, Antony Antony wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:44:36AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
> > Additionally, as I pointed out there is the issue of addresspool without
> > narrowing=yes working in the Initial Exchang
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Tuomo Soini wrote:
An earlier version of the patch needed that then I relaized that
whole logic different. And fixed it.
I also note that my initial suggestion as a fix was to remove the check
because it's quite meaningless - whatever remote suggests we ignore
anyway on re
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:21:02 +0200
Antony Antony wrote:
> An earlier version of the patch needed that then I relaized that
> whole logic different. And fixed it.
>
I also note that my initial suggestion as a fix was to remove the check
because it's quite meaningless - whatever remote suggests w
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:35:42PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Tuomo Soini wrote:
>
> > > An earlier version of the patch needed that then I relaized that
> > > whole logic different. And fixed it.
> >
> > I also note that my initial suggestion as a fix was to remove the che
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
I invite your code to run 4 test cases I mentioned earlier.
With my patch on east, and git master with the impairs on road,
the two related tests pass. Two tests are about testing the
initiator which does not relate to this discussion.
Paul
__
10 matches
Mail list logo
