Re: New issue 17: Full connectivity

[email protected] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Based on talks at San Diego, I've created a new issue
> on the issue tracker:
> 
>    "If both parties have several addresses, do we assume 
>   that all pairs have connectivity between them?"
> 
> There was discussion about this in mid-April (one example 
> mentioned was two SGWs connected via two different private 
> networks), and most people thought we should not assume this.
> 
> Assuming this would also seem to largely rule out IPv4/v6
> mobility.
> 
> If we decide _not_ to make this assumption, then we have cases 
> where we have to change both parties's addresses in SAs 
> at the same time.
> 
> It also seems the protocol will require some kind of address
> lists, so something like SMOBIKE won't work (unless we assume 
> one party knows several addresses for the other party via some 
> other means than address lists sent within the protocol).

I think the two SGW example is a pretty convincing one,
so I'd rather not assume full connectivity.

--Jari