Re: about draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-01.txt (issue 40)

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => no, I mean simultaneous multiple peer addresses for different
   > IPsec SAs, something I've called the SCTP model for multihoming
   > (note it is not only for SCTP, it was just accurately described
   > in SCTP documents).
   
   The current protocol already supports this functionality. There 
   are several different ways how this functionality could be 
   implemented in the protocol, and in issue 8 there was rough
   consensus to choose one of them (if you want different addresses 
   for different IPsec SAs, you can do so by creating IKE_SAs).
   
=> so MOBIKE handles multihoming the same way than TCP when
we expect according to the WG charter more something like SCTP.
   
   >    Could you give a concrete example of a scenario that can't be
   >    done currently?
   >    
   > => multihoming.
   
   I do not agree. We just chose to implement multihoming support 
   in a slightly different way than SCTP did.
   
=> what is the real difference between MOBIKE multihoming support
and IKEv2 multihoming support, and, more important, is this difference
enough?

Regards

[email protected]