Re: RE: issue 34 -- ESP vs. IKE based NAT reboot detection

 
> Tero Kivinen wrote:
> 
> >Thats why I am saying alternate 3 is better, as it requires less
> >changes or updates to the hardware.
> >  
> >
> One could also support ESP-based updates on devices
> that can do this, and say "this feature is not supported"
> on others -- we are still talking about a corner case.
> But people may have different opinions as to how
> important support for this is under all circumstances.
> 
If you do IKEv2 like updates, then you need a separate PATH_TEST
message (outside the SA) so that PATH_TEST does not cause updates
to SA. By requiring an explicit update, we avoid a separate PATH_TEST
message. Is that an advantage ?

-mohan

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