Re: Re: regarding INIT ACK from different destination IP.

Brian,

Please refer RFC-4460:

************************************************
2.36.2.  Text Changes to the Document

   ---------
   Old text: None
   ---------

   ---------
   New text: (Section 5.4)
   ---------
   5.4.  Path Verification

   During association establishment, the two peers exchange a list of
   addresses.  In the predominant case, these lists accurately represent
   the addresses owned by each peer.  However, it is possible that a
   misbehaving peer may supply addresses that it does not own.  To
   prevent this, the following rules are applied to all addresses of the
   new association:

   1) Any address passed to the sender of the INIT by its upper layer is
      automatically considered to be CONFIRMED.

   2) For the receiver of the COOKIE-ECHO the only CONFIRMED address is
      the one that the INIT-ACK was sent to.

   3) All other addresses not covered by rules 1 and 2 are considered
      UNCONFIRMED and are subject to probing for verification.

******************************************************************

In this case since the INIT-ACK is received from an un-confirmed 
address, should
it be accepted or not..?

Thanks
Bhanuprakash.


Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:

>Padmalochan,
>
>Padmalochan Moharana wrote:         (Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:17:42)
>  
>
>>Hi Brian
>>
>>please suggest for the following doubt.
>>
>>Should endoint (in case of Multi-homed), encode COOKIE
>>ECHO on receive the INIT_ACK from a different
>>destination IP of the INIT or it should  ignores the
>>INIT_ACK.
>>    
>>
>
>If the INIT_ACK corresponds to an INIT that was sent (addresses
>in the address list, verification tag, parameters and a cookie),
>send the COOKIE ECHO.
>
>Why would you think otherwise?
>
>--brian
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran