Re: issue 39 (was: comments on draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-01.txt)
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Looks like you can close #39, Pasi. --Jari Shinta Sugimoto wrote: >Hello again, > >On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:06:31 +0300 ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>Shinta Sugimoto writes: >> >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>I read draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-01.txt and had following >>>comments/questions. >>> >>>Technical Comments/Questions: >>> >>>- Section 2.3 (Changing addresses in IPsec SAs) I need >>>clarification on how address change functions in MOBIKE. First >>>of all, does UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES take effect on more than one >>>address changes ? Or it's supposed to update a single address? >>> >>> >>It updates the one source and one destination address in >>IKE and IPsec SAs (the src/dst addresss that is currently >>used for outgoing packets). >> >> > >OK. > > > >>>Probably I am confusing the purpose of UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES >>>and ADDITIONAL_*_ADDRESS. In my understanding, >>>UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES is for updating the preferred address, >>>which means that IKE_SA and IPsec SA (only matched one) are >>>the target of the address update. OTOH, ADDITIONAL_*_ADDRESS >>>is for updating (requesting its peer to update) the peer >>>address set. Do I get it right? >>> >>> >>Yes, I think you got it right (although the protocol document >>does not currently use the term "peer address set"). This set is >>used as input for address pair selection (on initiator side), >>and possibly when responder address changes (although the >>details need some clarification here...) >> >> > >OK. > > > >>>One more question: Should the initiator make all the CHILD_SAs >>>inactive which are associated with the IKE_SA whose "pending_update" >>>flag is set ? >>> >>> >>Why should it? (Continuing using those CHILD_SAs should work >>just fine, since in 2401bis the responder uses only the SPI for >>locating the inbound IPsec SA.) >> >> > >I see. I came to understand that there should be no problem with >initiator sending/receiving packets with new address right after >the address change. I need to synchronize my mind with RFC2401bis... >Thank you for the clarification. > > >Regards, >Shinta > >_______________________________________________ >Mobike mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike > > > >