[Swan-dev] Behaviour around Delete/Notify: two problems for the price of one.

Paul Wouters paul at nohats.ca
Fri Jul 29 10:17:32 UTC 2016

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Tuomo Soini wrote:

>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>>>  Clearly we should be consistent independent of IKE version.
>>>>  It all depends on what the meaning of auto=add with an ipsec auto
>>>> --up really means. Is this the same as "auto=start" meaning
>>>> "always try to keep this up"? If so, if the other end sends a
>>>> delete, shouldn't we immediately establish a new IKE SA, instead
>>>> of waiting one minute?
>>>>  And if the auto=add side sends an ipsec auto --down, does that
>>>> mean it will accept a request to immediately go up? That would
>>>> also be weird.
>>>>  So, I'm open for input :)
>> Which I still am, because I think we should not wait 60s before we
>> start trying again when we are configured to be "always up".
> To work correctly we'd need to know if we had auto=start/route or
> "ipsec auto --start". We don't really know that. But I think we should
> really use our initiator/responder role to decide our behaviour. If we
> are initiator and responder ends sends us delete SA we should start
> immediate renegotiation. If we are responder and initiator end sends
> delete SA we should just delete state.
> Does that sound reasonable? And we need to behave exactly same for both
> ikev1 and ikev2.

I think that is the behaviour I would expect, yes. And indeed, currently
the initial add versus add + up state change is not visible, so
currently we cannot make that distinction.


More information about the Swan-dev mailing list