Re: New issue 17: Full connectivity

Pasi,

I might have missed this at San Deigo. Why would anybody assume about the connectivity
about the address i.e why is this question even coming up ? If both the peers have multiple
address, then you have to support address list and can't make any assumptions about
the connectivity. You said below that if we don't make the assumption, then both address
can change at the same time on the SAs. Perhaps, i am missing the "assumption" part.
Assuming something is fully connected at some point in time does not mean that it stays
that way forever. So, even if we make the assumption, both the address may change
at the same time, right ? What am i missing ?
 
-mohan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:10 AM
Subject: [Mobike] New issue 17: Full connectivity


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).

Any comments?

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike