Re: issue 11 -- window size

Mohan Parthasarathy writes:
> 1) Define a separate window for PATH_TEST messages

Hmm... I am not sure what you mean by that. Can you exlain it more.

> 2) Do the PATH_TEST message outside the protection IKE SA [MOPO
>    protocol] 

Yes, that is another option. I just send my proposal to offer another
option for that proposal :-)

> Another advantage of keeping PATH_TEST message separate (like in (1)
> and (2) above), is that we can look for a new PATH even when there
> is no failure. This might be a useful feature. I don't know whether
> it is possible with Tero's proposal.

My proposal didn't give out any exact details of the path test
process, but as it will be done for all packets, you can use DPD
packets to do it, for example you could make the DPD path test checks
so that they will always start the different address pair, so that
finding of list of working address pairs happens on the background
during the DPD tests. When the actual failure happens the path test
process could use that information too.

On the other hand, I do not think there is that much value for the old
information, as clearly something has changed in the paths as the
current (previously working address pair) has stopped working, thus
all the old information we have might be obsolete now anyways.

I think we need to separate the actual process how to send the
PATH_TEST packets (i.e. path test process, what IP address try, and in
which order, what information to use, what timers to use etc), from
the packet format used for the PATH_TEST packets (i.e. separate
PATH_TEST exchange, or any IKE packet). 
-- 
[email protected]