Mohan Parthasarathy writes:
> >
> > - Since we don't have full connectivity, A's "mobility and
> > multihoming control module" would like to find the best
> > working (Ai,Bj) before the current one stops working.
> >
> As Jari pointed out, currently we don't know of a protocol
> that the multihoming control module could use.
We don't need a protocol (between hosts A and B) to have
such a control module. A local API would be quite
sufficient for many cases.
> > - In general, lower-layer mechanisms cannot tell whether pair
> > (Ai,Bj) provides connectivity between the IKEv2 endpoints:
> > only an IKEv2 message exchange can tell that.
> >
> Do you mean to say only IKEv2 can discover whether the path
> works or not in a secure way ? i.e even if there is a protocol
> discovered tomorrow that is not secure, it may not be sufficient.
> Is that what you are trying to say ? Because you said "only IKEv2
> message can tell that" ?
Security is one aspect of it, but that was not I meant.
What I meant was that if we have (or do not have) connectivity
between some other protocol endpoints on A and B (say, ICMP with
Echo Request/Reply), that doesn't automatically mean that we have
(or do not have) connectivity between the IKEv2 endpoints (and by
endpoints, I mean the IKEv2 software, not the host).
Best regards,
Pasi
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.