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

[email protected] writes:
> Actually, we need a separate PATH_TEST message even with the explicit
> update if we want to be able to do path testing at any time without
> the possibility of disrupting things.

You mean the case, where we have decided to move to new address, but
that new address breaks down after us testing it and after we sent
update to it, but before we get reply back to it? I think we do not
disrupt things more even if we use the IKE SA update message for
testing the path. The path is already broken, so we cannot disrupt it
more. After we get the IKE SA update message through, we have then
already fixed the situation, with separate path test we still need to
wait one more extra round trip to fix the situation (i.e we first use
the PATH_TEST to find the working path, and then send the packet to
that address, compared to using the IKE SA update message to do the
path test, and that will immediately fix the situation when the
correct path is found (or in case of unidirectional paths, then we
need to wait the another round trip, i.e. for the second address
update to reach the host)). 
-- 
[email protected]