On 8/11/21 2:29 AM, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On 8/10/21 11:41 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> Hi Leonard,
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 02:50, Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> [..]
>>> +/* Representation of a Master Key Tuple as per RFC5925 */
>>> +struct tcp_authopt_key_info {
>>> + struct hlist_node node;
>>> + /* Local identifier */
>>> + u32 local_id;
>>
>> There is no local_id in RFC5925, what's that?
>> An MKT is identified by (send_id, recv_id), together with
>> (src_addr/src_port, dst_addr/dst_port).
>> Why introducing something new to already complicated RFC?
>
> It was there to simplify user interface and initial implementation.
>
> But it seems that BGP listeners already needs to support multiple
> keychains for different peers so identifying the key by (send_id,
> recv_id, binding) is easier for userspace to work with. Otherwise they
> need to create their own local_id mapping internally.
>
any proposed simplification needs to be well explained and how it
relates to the RFC spec.
