Re: issue 3: 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
Okay. Do we want to add the qualifier that MOBIKE needs to work
in a "secure" fashion when moving behind a NAT  ? (unlike IKEv2 
which also supports NAT traversal but susceptible to 3rd
party bombing attacks). 

> 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.
> 
Note that none of the current proposals support NAT traversal. 
>From what i have read, they only have a prevention mechanism.

-mohan

> --Jari
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike