Re: issue 3: nat traversal

Hannes,

> let us try to close the nat traversal issue (issue 3) from 
> http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-mobike/issue3.txt
> 
> here is what we currently have: 
> 
> - charter says that we should not modify the ikev2 nat traversal mechanism.
> none of the proposal tries to todo that. 
> - draft <draft-eronen-mobike-simple-00.txt> addresses nat traversal. 
> - draft <draft-eronen-mobike-mopo-01.txt> and
> <draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-06.txt> additionally add a mechanism to
> indicate nat traversal prevention.
> 
> a number of people pointed to the need to support nat traversal. 
> 
The issue is a bit confusing to me. I agree that we don't want to modify
the IKEv2 NAT traversal as specified in the IKEv2 draft. But do we want
MOBIKE to work when moving behind NATs ? I am not sure which
question is being asked here. Could you clarify ? I see this as two separate
things. If we want to track this as two separate issues, i am fine with that.

-mohan


> hence, i think that we could have support for
> - nat traversal and
> - a nat traversal prevention (if you think you don't need it)
> without conflicting with the charter.  
> 
> to address the scenarios there also needs to support for an end host moving
> from not-behind a nat to behind a nat.  
> 
> ciao
> hannes
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike