Re: New issue 17: Full connectivity

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   [email protected] wrote:
   >  In your previous mail you wrote:
   > 
   >    Yes, I certainly agree that we should not assume this. I 
   >    brought this up because at some point, Francis was suggesting 
   >    that each end should be responsible for only changing its own 
   >    address (e.g. 2004-07-29), but probably I misunderstood him here.
   >    
   > => perhaps a SHOULD is a bit too strong here, IMHO this is only the
   > common/likely case. There is a known exception: when the addresses
   > are paired, it is better to change both addresses.
   > I have two arguments in favor of my opinion:
   >  - a node has a better control on the condition of its own addresses
   >  - when an address becomes unusable, the only critical thing is to
   >    change the local address of *inbound* SAs.
   
   Yes, certainly a node is likely to know better its own conditions
   than the other node. But I don't quite understand the last point: 
   in 2401bis, inbound IPsec SAs don't seem to have the local (tunnel 
   header) address at all? (unless they're multicast, but that's beyond 
   IKEv2)
   
=> tunnel inbound IPsec SAs have a local (destination) end-point address.
What I mean is the only way to fix this address is to send a message
to the other end saying what address to use. BTW this is the central
point of MOBIKE.

Regards

[email protected]