Re: Issue 73: Port numbers in examples

Hi Pasi,

Thanks.  I meant to follow up with an email, but it slipped my mind.

There's also another piece of text in section 3.5 which is misleading.

<snip>
o  If the IPsec SAs were updated in the previous step: If NAT
      Traversal is not enabled, and the responder supports NAT Traversal
      (as indicated by NAT detection payloads in the IKE_SA_INIT
      exchange), and the initiator either suspects or knows that a NAT
      is likely to be present, enables NAT Traversal (that is, enables
      UDP encapsulation of outgoing ESP packets and sending of NAT-
      Keepalive packets).
<end snip>

This implies that we didn't already switch to port 4500 as was mentioned
earlier in the doc.  My impression is that we were always doing UDP
encaps on port 4500.  (or are we just switching IKE to port 4500, but
not doing UDP encaps?)

Stephane.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:51 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Mobike] Issue 73: Port numbers in examples
> 
> 
> Stephane pointed out in the WG meeting that the examples in 
> Section 2.2 don't change to port 4500 as they should.
> 
> Best regards,
> Pasi
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
>