Re: issue 3: nat traversal

Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:

> 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.

I think the key question is what do we want MOBIKE to do,
i.e., does it need to work when moving behind a NAT? And
then answer seems to be yes.

Its true that the we have a restriction that we should not modify
IKEv2 NAT traversal. My advice is not to focus too much on this
question. Lets do what it makes technical sense. I do not think
any of the current proposals modify NAT-T, even if we can perhaps
provide a new stage in the protocol when it is turned on (not just
in the initial contact). So lets not worry about this part.

--Jari