Re: New issue 16: No packets from other end?

Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    Jari Arkko writes:
>    > Triggering something known locally (interface down etc)
>    > needs an external trigger. Lack of packets could be triggered
>    > either by external triggers or MOBIKE/IKEv2 itself. I
>    > personally prefer the latter, because there would be
>    > less reliance on APIs and other protocol layers.
>    
>    Modify that MOBIKE/IKEv2 to include also IPsec then I agree... The
>    most common way to get the information is to notice that there is no
>    ESP packets coming in....
> 
> => IMHO this is a dangerous path to follow because it shall give
> a monster for the MOBIKE/IKEv2 tool. I understand you are more interested
> by MOBIKE SGs than by more generic mobile/multi-homed boxes where
> MOBIKE is only a small part of the whole thing but please don't
> specialize MOBIKE as some are always trying to specialize IPsec to VPNs.

This is a good point.

One way to look at this is to talk about what observations
must be supported by a MOBIKE implementation and what
observations are optional. For instance, local knowledge
could still be allowed even if MOBIKE/IKEv2/IPsec was
mandated to deliver observations about problems. Or are
you suggesting that local knowledge would be mandatory
and 'lack of packets' optional?

--Jari