Re: issue 11 -- window size

 > 
> >On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 09:30, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>For the purpose
> >>of making progress, let me propose one approach. If the
> >>decision was "do it outside the window", would people have
> >>problems with that?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >(I'm reading mail out of order)
> >
> >I don't have a problem with that. 
> >
> >One encoding which makes this clear would be to allocate a new IKEv2
> >Exchange Type and specify that it has a distinct Message ID space
> >distinct from the space used by the existing four types (see section 3.1
> >of draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-17.txt).  
> >  
> >
> This would work for me. But I'd still like to understand
> what happens when we have to do several MOBIKE
> requests in this new space before we get an answer from
> the peer, are we bounded by some upper limit, or can we
> do any number of operations?
> 
Good question. If the other end has 10 addresses and currently
now reachable at only one address, we might have to try at least
9 addresses i.e 9 or more messages to find out the working path.
I don't know how it will work if it is based on the current window
scheme of IKEv2. If i don't get a response for a request, i need
to retransmit a different message (using different address) with the
same message-id or a new message with a new message-id (which
means any number of operations) till a working pair is obtained.
Am i missing something..Perhaps that's why the path-test message
should not be constrained by the window ?

-mohan
> --Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike