Re: Lack of packets from other end

> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 14:54:43 -0800
> From: Joe Touch <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Mobike] issue #16
> To: Tschofenig Hannes <[email protected]>
> Cc: MOBIKE Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> Tschofenig Hannes wrote:
> | hi all,
> |
> | i guess we can close issue # 16:
> | "Can the protocol recover from situations where the only sign of
> problems is
> | lack of packets from the other end?"
> | http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-mobike/issue16.txt
> 
> Internet paths that are silent aren't problems, IMO. They're 
> just idle network paths.
> 
> This sounds like a job for a link layer, and I don't think 
> mobike needs to be a link layer.
> 
> Joe

I agree with Joe here. There are legitimate situations where there may
be no packets from the other end for a long period of time. We have DPD
to detect a dead peer. If a peer moves from one IP addr to another
without notifying the security gateway, I don't think it is the SG's job
to detect and recover from this.

Regards,

Bora