From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: port bound SAs Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:21:32 +0100 Message-ID: <497F429C.6010006@trash.net> References: <20090126.222035.100955508.davem@davemloft.net> <497EE171.1030907@trash.net> <497F3DD0.5010502@trash.net> <497F4071.2040302@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Moore Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:42626 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752786AbZA0RVd (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:21:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Paul Moore wrote: > the pfkey / xfrm interface throws them away I misparsed that statement, I thought you meant both. Yes, you seem to be right, pfkey ignores them. > i fixed racoon to send the port numbers and they were ignored I believe thats intentional, RFC2367 specifies to ignore port numbers except for larval states.