Re: Thoughts about issues 10/19: changing address vs. paths, and so on...

Thinking some more about this, I would actually like
to go for approach #3. This would simplify our protocol,
and would ensure an arhitecture where NAT and
firewall traversal can happen easily.

If make this decision, it seems that the following other
open issues would also be solved:

1 (direct or indirect indicators): Because one side is
responsible for the whole thing, we would have to
support failure detection using DPD at the initiator
side. Note that responder may still need to update its
own list of addresses now and then, say if an interface
goes down.

unassigned issue # (the list complaint that large SGWs
should not be forced to check the connectivity to clients):
The client would be doing all the work.

--Jari