Subject: [Mobike] New issue 17: Full connectivity

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:10:58 +0300

Hi,

Based on talks at San Diego, I've created a new issue
on the issue tracker:

   "If both parties have several addresses, do we assume 
  that all pairs have connectivity between them?"

There was discussion about this in mid-April (one example 
mentioned was two SGWs connected via two different private 
networks), and most people thought we should not assume this.

Assuming this would also seem to largely rule out IPv4/v6
mobility.

If we decide _not_ to make this assumption, then we have cases 
where we have to change both parties's addresses in SAs 
at the same time.

It also seems the protocol will require some kind of address
lists, so something like SMOBIKE won't work (unless we assume 
one party knows several addresses for the other party via some 
other means than address lists sent within the protocol).

Any comments?

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:56:52 +0300

> other means than address lists sent within the protocol).

I think the two SGW example is a pretty convincing one,
so I'd rather not assume full connectivity.

--Jari

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:03:18 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> obviously no so not only we need address lists but we need
some kind of loose address pairing.
BTW the question is not new and was proposed when I tried to find
a good usage case for the loose address pairing my proposal provides...

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: obviously = just consider a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for
both peers.
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike