Re: issue 34 proposal
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I think most of the speedup is in the detection part. --Jari Mohan Parthasarathy wrote: >I am assuming NAT change at ESP layer follows IKEv2 NAT-T i.e no return routability >check. Otherwise, the speedup obtained by the traditional IKEv2 NAT-T is lost and >there is no point in having this mechanism at all. > >-mohan > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]>; "Tero Kivinen" <[email protected]>; "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]> >Cc: <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:54 AM >Subject: RE: [Mobike] issue 34 proposal > > >Just to clarify... > >If one does detect NAT change at ESP layer, what does one do? > >Do we do a return routability check on the new address before updating >it's SADB? It would seem logical, but just want to make sure we're on >the same page. > >Stephane. > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] >>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>[email protected] >>Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:23 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: [Mobike] issue 34 proposal >> >>Jari Arkko wrote: >> >> >>>Tero Kivinen wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>So perhaps we should say you MUST NOT do automatic update >>>> >>>> >>with IKEv2 >> >> >>>>packets (breaks the probing), but you MAY do it for ESP packets? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>This would work for me (and the complexity cost would be >>> >>> >>only on those >> >> >>>implementations that actually do the MAY). >>> >>> >>Sounds reasonable to me as well. >> >>Best regards, >>Pasi >>_______________________________________________ >>Mobike mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ >Mobike mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike > > > >