RE: issue #16

hi joe,  

please see my comment below:

> 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.

based on a previous discussion we observed that we can have network failures
which are either on the local link or somewhere along the path between a
source and a destination. observing the local link only addresses only some
problems - not all. a number of other working groups have made similar
observations.  
> 
> This sounds like a job for a link layer, and I don't think 
> mobike needs to be a link layer.

we also agreed that mobike depends on information from a number of other
protocols (including link layer protocols). these protocols provide hints to
mobike. 

you are right: mobike is certainly not a link layer protocol. no
disagreement about it. 

> 
> Joe

ciao
hannes
> 
> | as a conclusion of the discussions we said:
> |
> | - mobike defines a mechanism to test connectivity along paths.
> | - both peers might use input from other sources to detect a failure
> (e.g., a
> | local link failure)
> | - based on this information mobike might decide to switch to a new 
> | address (if available).
> |
> | ciao
> | hannes
> | _______________________________________________
> | Mobike mailing list
> | [email protected]
> | https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFBuNezE5f5cImnZrsRAlRKAJ45hue31XWR2Gklfxm13vDYtHVX1QCfU86E
> SmA7ZmLlf47460z4d07E/OA=
> =KIh/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>