Re: KINK should referenece to IKEv2?

Shoichi Sakane wrote:
>>Speaking as an AD, if 2401bis is approved by IETF 62, Kink will be
>>based on 2401bis.  If not, then it depends on where 2401bis is, where
>>Kink is, and how fast things are moving.
> 
> 
> I dont understand why KINK will be based on 2401bis when 2401bis
> is approved by IETF62.  There are lots of platforms based on 2401.
> KINK should be based on 2401 in order to deploy it.  If the market
> will not choice 2401bis and if a kink implementation based on 2401bis
> does not work on a platform based on 2401, then KINK will not deploy.
> 
> it is not easy to know how difference between 2401bis and 2401,
> and it is not easy to know if a key management daemon based on
> 2401bis will work on a platform based on 2401.  so I said in previous
> mail that we should make kink based on 2401 then make kink based on
> 2401bis.  kink header has a version field.
> 

I agree with Sakane-san.

I think if kink is based on 2401bis, it would use IKEv2 instead of ISAKMP.
If it uses IKEv2, I guess there are conflicts which are rekeying and dead peer
handling because IKEv1 does not mention those process and KINK specifies it by
it self. Changing for IKEv2 and resolving new issues need a long time.
I think we should go with 2401.

--
Kazunori Miyazawa