Re: Adam Roach's Abstain on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for the reply! I think we're getting closer to an answer here, 
but I'm still quite lost on one key aspect.


On 10/4/19 7:15 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
> In the legacy HIP NAT traversal (RFC5770), we have third protocol
> (STUN) on the same port and it does not follow RFC7401 conventions
> because it was not designed with IPsec in mind. As a result,*all*
> packets need to be diverted to an userland daemon in order to separate
> the STUN packets from HIP/ESP.


I can't figure out why this diversion is necessary. What prevents 
characterization of packets in kernel space?

/a