Re: protocol/port in Phase 1 ID Payload must be 0/0 or 17/500 but are 17/0 (seems to be an old problem ???)

I had never read the relevant rfc's (I assume that is where the
specification exists???) so was never in a position to make a judgement
on it being a bug or not.

If anyone has the rfc's on hand, and can email me with something to hit
cisco with, I can submit a bug report as I think we would have at least
30 or so support contracts for various clients. Failing someone sending
me an extract, just the rfc number would be good although I could
probably find that easily enough.

Just a pedantic note about your comments... by definition, I don't think
that you can knowingly add a bug to code. A bug is behaviour in code you
didn't expect because you didn't know you'd put it there. As much as you
don't like the behaviour, it would be behaving the way you've told it to
and so I think you'd have to call it a workaround, not a bug. Although
if we're comparing behaviour to the rfc, then maybe you would be right
in calling it a bug...

James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Hugh Redelmeier [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, 3 November 2003 02:20
> To: Sam Sgro
> Cc: FreeS/WAN Users; FreeS/WAN Design; James Harper; Thomas
> Subject: Re: [Users] protocol/port in Phase 1 ID Payload must be 0/0
or
> 17/500 but are 17/0 (seems to be an old problem ???)
>=20
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>=20
>=20
> | From: Sam Sgro <[email protected]>
>=20
> | D. Hugh Redelmeier's explanation:
> |
> | http://lists.freeswan.org/pipermail/design/2002-January/001810.html
>=20
> An even more clear response:
>
<http://lists.freeswan.org/pipermail/users/2003-January/017808.html>
>=20
> On the surface, this appears to be a bug in Cisco's IKE
> implementation.  It has shown up on our lists at least since January.
> Has anyone reported it to Cisco?
>=20
> If not: why not?  I'm not a Cisco customer or even user so I'm not the
> best guy to report it.  I'm loath to add a bug to FreeS/WAN (yes, bug:
> read Stephen's message) to compensate for a bug in Cisco's code.
>=20
> If so: what has their response been?  Is there a configuration fix for
> the Cisco end?  Is there a software update fo fix it?  Have they
> claimed that this is not a bug?
>=20
> Hugh Redelmeier
> [email protected]  voice: +1 416 482-8253
>=20
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3ia
> Charset: noconv
>=20
> iQCVAwUBP6UguMFAuQPManGZAQEeNAP/XlNch/gZ85c/aoJxnSZEG3G+UL+70GvV
> cdt9WW4SvIFFbPxaRUHmXRtvq5cmPKFbB8DAQSVNvkaJ9DRr5pDAiXd1zOxsCnBL
> He34gV9GigGQousMd8ONQMR7uHUY7QA/2Ijpx7tzb+aGlztNxe4wuvtkUHgIl3zf
> ikxR+mNfm1k=3D
> =3DgFmo
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----