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

Mohan Parthasarathy writes:
> > 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 ?

I think it is advantage, if we do not need to implement separate
PATH_TEST. It makes the protocol cleaner. The separate PATH_TEST has a
feeling of a hack for me. 

Also it will localize the policy decisions on the IP-address changes
to one place, so the policy will be same regardless why we change the
address.
-- 
[email protected]