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

I would prefer to avoid sending periodic probes (option 3).

Even though the HW may not be capable of detecting and performing
IP/port changes *today*, they will be able to do it in the future
(especially if we make it a requirement for them).

It's not like if Mobike is going to be mass deployed tomorrow.  This is
going to take a long time to bake and test.  Start working with your HW
vendors now, and let's do it right the first time.  Those who ship
before the HW is ready can document this corner case, or solve it via
some less efficient SW workaround (for now).  I'd rather take the
performance hit for BETA than forever...

I vote option 1.
Stephane.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:03 AM
> To: Tero Kivinen
> Cc: [email protected]; Mohan Parthasarathy; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Mobike] 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.
> 
> --Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
>