RE: Re: Lack of packets from other end

hi bora, 

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.
> > 
> > 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.

please note that we are addressing the issue of address changes for ikev2
peers only. we are not talking about fixing problems for entities which do
not interact using ike. at the last ietf pasi presented a nice slide which
showed the large number of protocols and entities involved in a network. he
showed us that we are only addressing a subset of the problems and i agree
with him. 

ciao
hannes

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bora
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
>