RE: issue 3: nat traversal

hi mohan, 

thanks for your feedback. 

please see my comment below: 

~snip~  
> 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). 

what is a "secure" nat traversal solution for you? 


> 
> > 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.
> 
i got a different impression. see for example, 
- <draft-eronen-mobike-simple-00.txt> 
- <draft-eronen-mobike-mopo-01.txt> 

ciao
hannes

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