Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt

Hi Jeff,

On 06/30/2016 07:33 PM, Jeff Ahrenholz wrote:
> 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.

we need to choose between the two alternatives:

1. Either always set up the direct path with connectivity tests when ICE 
mode negotiated
2. ...or set it up only when both ESP and ICE-HIP-UDP are present

After this discussion, I would actually lean towards the first option 
because this would make the two options independent. And even if you 
don't use ESP, you would still get a direct path for hiccups v2.

So actually no change to the draft :) What say you?

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec