References: <6b3b8a029cd8761642ac3f8174238aa2.squirrel@...2260...> <063244418e0b88138db5b490037cb7a4.squirrel@...2257...> <267890da-2186-dddb-d4c4-d6374da7e086@...277...> <049b9d27-d6a4-41cf-9742-bed02b2cc39b@...2080...> <18a96a72-4778-22b3-8a57-ce87d3f7060b@...2080...> <11253b26-cb11-8b7a-02e0-d5b1ad89e199@...277...> <2465b076-35e8-6144-f1b8-085ad5a016f0@...277...> <86ef0241-5144-206a-4691-6713434fdaa4@...277...> <20170405204236.GM93896@...1296...> <31b0e79c-99b3-0372-8e47-762dbc3990d7@...277...> <93f91c48-94cb-c421-3f06-d7d76eb58511@...2080...> From: debbie10t Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 22:57:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <93f91c48-94cb-c421-3f06-d7d76eb58511@...2080...> Subject: Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH v2] Add per session pseudo-random component to --reneg-sec intervals List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Hi, On 05/04/17 22:39, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 05/04/17 23:13, debbie10t wrote: >> I don't believe there is any need to specify "max" because that would be >> --reneg-sec as is. Otherwise specify a smaller or larger --reneg-sec > > I think you, probably without being aware of it, are agreeing to what > the current proposal is: > > --reneg-sec max > A renegotiation happens within 'max' seconds, but with a 10%-ish > randomness > > --reneg-sec min max > A renegotiation happens within 'min' and 'max' seconds, fully > controllable > > So using --reneg-sec 3600 3600, effectively removes the randomness. I understand the proposed methods .. Of the two above, I would be inclined toward option 2. eg: (for me) --reneg-sec 0 3600 is ideal. Thanks :)