RE: issue 6: scope of SA changes

<[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.mobike
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Jari Arkko writes:
> 
> 1. Would it be useful to treat different flows or applications
>     in a different manner with regards to their multihoming
>     behaviour? For instance, keep one flow always in GPRS
>     but allow another flow to use LAN where available.
> 
>     Yes, mandatory [ ]
>     Yes, optional  [X]
>     No             [ ]

> 2. Would you like to provide this functionality through
> 
>     Separate IPsec SAs and their independent addresses   [ ]
>     Separate IKE SAs and their independent addresses     [X]

Separate IKE SAs are IMHO the simplest way to go, 
considering that 

- I think that real-world MOBIKE deployments will not use this 
  kind of functionality anyway, or at least it will be extremely 
  rare in the near future. 

- In many of those rare cases where different treatment is needed, 
  it can be handled adequately by creating several IKE SAs.

- This simplifies the protocol somewhat (e.g., no need to treat 
  those addresses differently for RR purposes).

- If the remaining cases (where the ability to have only a single 
  IKE SA would provide substantial user-visible benefits) become
  more important e.g. five years from now, we can do something
  about them then.
  
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.