Re: Regarding the charter revision w.r.t the IPsec SA and IKEv2

Raj,

Perhaps you could convey this message to NWG?

           jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Basavaraj Patil" <basavaraj.patil@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <mip6@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)" <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: [Mip6] Regarding the charter revision w.r.t the IPsec SA and IKEv2


> In discussions with Pasi Eronen, I believe there is really nothing 
> specific
> that needs to be done w.r.t MIP6 and IKEv2 as far as dead-peer-detection 
> is
> concerned.
>
> Pasi's comment was:
> "
> When using IPsec for MIP6, there is no need to send any keepalives.
> IKE may do Dead Peer Detection (DPD) occasionally, but this is a
> configurable parameter (just like binding lifetime) and doing DPD,
> say, once every 8 hours does not seem unacceptable to me. And doing
> DPD (and Binding Updates) every N hours is IMHO *MUCH* better solution
> than introducing hard state (as someone already pointed out on the
> list).
>
> (In the NAT case, we typically need keepalives every 30 seconds, and
> the endpoints can't choose any other internal since it depends on the
> NAT, not the endpoints.)
> "
>
> Hence I believe that there is not really any concern as far as IPsec/IKEv2
> is concerned in the context of MIP6.
>
> -Raj
>
> P.s: I had to forward Pasi's note since he is not registered on the MIP6
> list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> Mip6@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6