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

Hi Atul,

The other end could be a mobile host or SGW, depending 
on your point of view.

The issue is what to do if we have not received a "link 
down" signal from layer 2 (or somewhere), but we don't 
get any responses (to IKEv2 requests) from the other end 
either. In this situation,  should we just close the 
connection, or "somehow" trigger MOBIKE to change to 
some other address(es)? 

(Some details of the "somehow" part will be beyond 
the scope of the MOBIKE specification, but probably  
something needs to be said to ensure interoperability.)

Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 5:40 PM
> To: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Mobike] New issue 16: No packets from other end?
> 
> I needed some clarifications from MOBIKE veterans, before 
> expressing an opinion:
> 
> What is the "other end" here? The mobile host? or the 
> multihoming SGW?
> 
> Who initiates the MOBIKE protocol? I would guess:
>    (1) a mobile host after the move, needs to notify the 
>        remote SGW of its new address.
>    (2) a multihoming SGW, upon detecting that one of its 
>        interfaces (which was used to contact the mobile host)
>        is down and it needs to notify the mobile host of its
>        new interface address to be used.
> 
> Are there any other scenarios of how MOBIKE can be initiated? 
> When would we use the information that there is "lack of packets 
> from the other end", to initiate the MOBIKE protocol?
> 
> Thanks,
> Atul
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] 
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > Behalf Of ext 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 9:01 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [Mobike] New issue 16: No packets from other end?
> > 
> > 
> > I've created a new issue in the issue list:
> > 
> >    "Can the protocol recover from situations where the only 
> >    sign of problems is lack of packets from the other end?"
> > 
> >    (http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-mobike/issues.html)
> > 
> > Many people at the WG meeting expressed opinions that this 
> > should be handled somehow (in addition to handling e.g. 
> > link-down triggers from layer 2, or something similar).
> > 
> > So far, I do not remember anyone saying that the protocol
> > does not need to handle this situation. But comments
> > are welcome.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Pasi