On 6/30/16, 9:06 AM, "Miika Komu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Seems like a good idea. No ESP_TRANSFORM -> no need to establish two-way >> comms between peers. >> For example, when performing a registration procedure with a relay server. > > The direct path could be, of course, used for exchange HIP messages > directly (including hiccups v2). Does this make sense?
yes, makes sense > If not, what should happen when both ESP_TRANSFORM and ICE-HIP-UDP are > both negotiated? Or should we just be proactive and state that upon > receiving R1, the Initiator MUST NOT include ICE-HIP-UDP if it is not > going to employ any ESP_TRANSFORM. This proposed sentence seems like a good revision. > Connectivity tests implement the return routability checks. Currently, > the NAT mobility triggering mechanism mimics the tree-way procedure in here: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12#section-3.2.1 > > I thought that would nice for implementers but strictly speaking steps > 5-6 could skipped since the connectivity checks actually implement the > return routability checks. > > I can change this if you agree? Yes, I agree they can be skipped. The connectivity checks are more UPDATE packets, and fewer update round-trips seems like faster mobility handover. -Jeff _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
