A few weeks ago I posted a question to the IETF IPsec group on this topic I have 2 SPDs declared saying (transport mode) 10.0.0.0/24 port 23 esp 10.0.0.0/24 port 80 esp I then initiate a connection from that Linux machine to another system that has the same logical rules port 23 fires up and I get an SA pair. The question is - does that SA pair belong to port 23 or not If I now connect using port 80 from the same Linux box to the same peer it tries to use the SA already set up for port 23 The remote system (windows in my test case) drops the packets because it believes that the SA is for port 23 traffic only The small amount of feedback I got was that the SA should belong to port 23 and that Linux seems to be doing the wrong thing I can change the problem a bit by adding require to the SPD entry. There are several things wrong with that though a) it should not be necessary b) I get a lot of SAs c) I can no longer say that the SPD is optional (that's a separate topic, the overloading of 2 orthogonal concepts onto a single value) d) I am still worried that it does not work correctly in all cases -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| KOSAKI Motohiro | [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" |
| Faik Uygur | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc1 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Trent Piepho | [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jens Axboe | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
