RE: issue 34 proposal

> 
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    Francis Dupont wrote:
>    
>    >=> note that I disagree.
> 
>    Ok. Can you expand the above a bit with
>    some reasons and/or alternative proposals?
>    
> => I am for making the standard mechanism for IKEv2/NAT-T 
> (update by ESP) simply mandatory in MOBIKE environments (option 1bis).
> This is not against the charter (no new things for NAT-T) and 
> can be considered as a MOBIKE profile compatible with the 
> "mainstream" IKEv2.

Francis,

Can't both be done?  If I notice that packets are coming in using a SPI
for which the IP/port doesn't match what I expect, can't I just process
them anyway, and update my sadb?  There doesn't appear anything
interoperability wise to stop you from doing this.  If you update, you
recover NOW.  If you wait for DPD/NAT-T, it will take longer, but still
eventually update.

It means more code to write (since we have to be able to handle 2
different ways of changing NAT mappings), but it does satisfy both
camps.

Stephane.


> 
> Regards
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> PS: I don't buy the hardware argument (nor such hardware :-).
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
>