Re: New issue 16: No packets from other end?
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Organization | None |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Francis, > (2) Its not okay. MOBIKE/IKEv2/IPsec should fail and > wait for the rest of the stack to inform when there's > again an operational address. > > If problems on the path need to be handled, this would > imply the development of a new, separate protocol for > testing paths. Note that ICMP/TCP/app may already have > told us of a problem with the current communications just > as DPD did. But what we need is finding _another_ pair > that works. No protocol that I know does that right now. > Most of what we have in IPv6/DNA etc is focused on local > issues, such as availability of the router. > > => this is true only because you take all your examples from > the mobility world, not from the multi-homing one which is > some years late compared to mobility. So IMHO your argument Lets see.. hmm... you are right that I was thinking too much about the mobility world. But on the other hand, do we have a multihoming protocol _right now_ that does this? I think SCTP does it, but that would limit the ability of MOBIKE to survive problems on the path only if SCTP was used -- which seems pretty hard requirement to me. Plus it wouldn't work with SGWs as far as I can see, because there wouldn't be any SCTP in the endpoints. I happen to know also that the MULTI6 protocol that is being worked on includes will include a new protocol for this purpose. But like SCTP, it only works as an integral part of MULTI6, its not a standalone protocol. Plus it doesn't work for IPv4, despite my requests to make it so :-( > is wrong and there will be an external mechanism which is able > to find another pair that works, ... All I was saying is that there isn't one now :-) I forgot SCTP, but OTOH that doesn't work for everything. And I'm not aware of anyone developing a protocol that would cover all the main requirements, and be usable together with MOBIKE. But you are right -- this could change. --Jari