Let me further separate threads. This one issue is relatively standalone, and orthogonal to the format re-structuring you are suggesting.
> >> As yet another simplification, what if you allowed any authenticated > >> PANA message update the source IP/port? This would seem to be of > >> considerable help to NAT traversal (e.g., if the PaC is issuing a > >> periodic Ping). Also, it would mean that you don't have to define a > >> specific message (e.g., the Ping, or reauth, etc. would all do the > trick > >> just fine). > >> > > > > I'm thinking this implicit semantics may hurt us down the road. There > may be > > valid reasons to send messages with different source addresses in the > > future. I think a dedicated and explicit message type is better. > > > If you allow messages to come from different source addresses for the > same session, we are back to coordinating a context ID for the PANA > session that is somehow unique across the administrative domain. The session is still on the same PAA. PaC is the one changing address. I think you are referring to the case when we needed to globally unique session identifiers. I don't see a need for such a thing in this case. Alper _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
