Re: issue 3: nat traversal

Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:

>>>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? 
>>
> 
> The one that does not have the 3rd party bombing attack :-)
> To put in a different way, MOBIKE's security should not
> be altered, when moving behind a NAT. As we are
> at the design stage, it might make sense to understand
> what sort of NAT traversal solution we are going to
> have. 

Right. And I want MOBIKE to be secure in this fashion.
However, if we move behind a NAT, and our configuration
allows such move, I think we pretty much have to downgrade
the security to what NAT-T offers. Or do you see a way
around that?

--Jari