Re: FW: Marcelo's review of mobike protocol

marcelo bagnulo braun writes:
> right, if such path exists

Yes. We do assume there is working IP-pair that allows us to get
packets in both direction. This does not really matter if this
consists of two unidirectional paths, as long as it is routers who
take care of that (i.e. not MOBIKE).

> It maybe the case, that only disjunct unidirectional paths exists, 
> because of ingress filters.
> In this case, mobike protocol wouldn't achieve to communicate, even if 
> a path exists, and it would be possible to communicate if the mobike 
> protocol supported different addresses in the different peers of the 
> communication

If I understand correctly TCP would not work in that case too (i.e.
TCP also assumes you can send and receive packets using same IP-pair
in both ends, just reverse the IP-addresses). Both TCP or MOBIKE can
be made so that they do not really cares which interface was used to
send packet out and from which interface it was received, but that is
operating system issue, not protocol issue. MOBIKE does not try to
work in cases where you need to use different IP-address pair in one
direction and another pair to the other direction.

> > If it has multiple IP addresses associated to the IKE SA (even before
> > it is created) then it should try all combinations of them through the
> > normal IKE SA retransmission policy.
> 
> does the IKE SA retransmission policy tries different source addresses?

MOBIKE section 4.4. tells what to do if IKEv2 request has been
re-transmited several times with no reply, and when initiator decides
new address, he should go through all possible address combinations
before giving up.
-- 
[email protected]