Re: straw poll on issue 20 (selection ipsec sa addresses and who decides)

I prefer option 3 for its simplicity. Also, it seems to me that the mobile
client-to-gateway scenario is such a compelling use case for Mobike, it
makes it natural for the initiator to decide.

-g

On Wed, 18 May 2005, Jari Arkko wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> At IETF-62 and on the list we discussed this issue
> that relates to what (outer) addresses are selected for the IPsec
> SAs, and who decides these addresses, the initiator, both peers,
> etc.
>
> This is a central question for the design of the mobike protocol,
> as it is hard to design further details without knowing the
> what we decide here. For this reason I'd like us to do a straw poll
> on what alternative people feel most comfortable with. The
> alternatives are discussed in
>
>   http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-mobike/issue20.txt
>
> in more detail, but essentially its a question of
> the following choice:
>
>   Option 1: "MOBIKE just informs the peer of our addresses; how
>   they get used is a matter of local policy beyond our scope."
>
>   Option 2: "Use the preferred/primary address"
>
>   Option 3: "Initiator decides"
>
>   Option 4: "Use the preferred/primary address if possible"
>
>   Option 5: "Peers decide the source addresses independently"
>
> (There are potential other variants of design but these
> seem to be the main ones, or at least the current concrete
> proposals for the MOBIKE protocol are covered above.)
>
> Please make your opinion, along with its justifications,
> known by May 25th.
>
> --Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
>