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

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   >=> what is the real difference between MOBIKE multihoming support
   >and IKEv2 multihoming support, and, more important, is this difference
   >enough?

   My understanding of this difference is that in our current
   proposal, the peers can register their alternative addresses
   and failover to the other addresses if there's a connectivity
   problem in the currently used address. (I don't think you
   can do this in basic IKEv2, and personally, I think its a good
   tradeoff in terms of functionality vs. effort and configuration.)
   This is what I call the "failover" multihoming model.
   
   In the SCTP multihoming model we can choose more independently
   where to send data, even if there's still the concept of a
   primary (default) path.
   
   In the load balancing multihoming model we can send even
   the same stream over multiple paths, and still perform appropriate
   load balancing, congestion avoidance, and acknowledgement
   tasks.
   
=> fine definition. My concern is the SCTP model and SCTP itself
is in the charter, so according to its own charter the WG doesn't
provide *yet* a good enough support to multihoming...

Regards

[email protected]