Re: Conclusion on issue 34

Looks okay to me.

-mohan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]>
To: "MOBIKE Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:37 AM
Subject: [Mobike] Conclusion on issue 34


> Based on discussion, it appears that most people prefer
> the following:
> 
>    1) NAT-detection payload -based NAT reboot/change detection
>        as a complement to existing source address -based
>        mechanisms. This mechanism would be used if MOBIKE
>        is on, because otherwise MOBIKE probing would become
>        harder.
> 
>        Detection would be done by including NAT detection
>        payloads in dead peer detection messages.
> 
>        Existing source address -based detection is still allowed in
>        limited manner:  "MUST NOT do automatic update with
>        IKEv2 packets when MOBIKE is used (breaks the probing),
>        but you MAY do it for ESP packets."
> 
>    2) Use IKE messages for the path testing that is needed
>        in MOBIKE.
> 
> I have specifically left out the conclusion about whether
> to do return routability after a NAT change is detected.
> I'm hoping its covered by the policy that we already have
> for return routability usage. If people disagree about this
> we'll open a separate issue on it.
> 
> Also, it was brought up during the discussion that our
> charter talks about NAT traversal, requires us to not
> change IKEv2 NAT traversal but also requires us to
> document how they work together. There has been a
> discussion of how well the different alternative proposals
> follow the charter. We discussed this with Paul and
> concluded that its important we choose the solution
> that the group feels is the technically correct one.
> The charter requires us to document interactions,
> which we are doing. We also do not change anything
> in the regular NAT traversal behaviour, except that
> when both NAT traversal and MOBIKE are being
> used we need to handle source address changes
> in MOBIKE-compatible manner. We realize that
> any specification of the interaction that goes beyond
> ("they can be used completely independently" and
> "they can not be used together at all") is walking
> a fine line between complying and violating the
> charter. But we feel that in this case we are still
> reasonably within charter.
> 
> --Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike