<div dir="ltr">Strongswan does not send a DELETE.<div>Here is the pointer where Strongswan decides not to send a DELETE.</div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">ke_sa->delete() for a IKE SA that is rekeyed silently deletes itself:  </span><a href="https://github.com/strongswan/strongswan/blob/master/src/libcharon/sa/ike_sa.c#L1786" target="_blank" class="gmail-cremed cremed" style="font-size:12.8px">https://github.com/<wbr>strongswan/strongswan/blob/<wbr>master/src/libcharon/sa/ike_<wbr>sa.c#L1786</a><span style="font-size:12.8px">  (note the 'break' and return DESTROY_ME).</span><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Tobias Brunner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tobias@strongswan.org" target="_blank">tobias@strongswan.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Noam,<br>
<span class=""><br>
>     > My question: How is the Cisco ASR supposed to know that the old IKE SA<br>
>     > is no longer relevant?<br>
>     Because it is deleted?<br>
><br>
> How is the peer supposed to know that it is deleted if it doesn't<br>
> receive a DELETE message?<br>
<br>
</span>It doesn't send one?  I suppose that's problematic (however, DELETES in<br>
IKEv1 are not really reliable anyway).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Tobias<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>