Re: Some thoughts about "path failover"

Tero Kivinen wrote:

>>But perhaps we could have address lists and still fix the path
>>testing role for one of the participants only, such as the IKEv2
>>initiator.
> 
> 
> I also think this should be fine. BTW, original IKEv2 initiator is
> better party to do the recovery, as it is most likely going to be the
> roaming laptop. Thus it is the party which might move to behind NAT
> box, and it is only party which can fix that problem (i.e. move to use
> the NAT-T instead).

Ok.

--Jari