RE: issue 3: nat traversal

hi francis, 

~snip~

> 
> => NAT prevention is important for security as I explained in 
> a previous message, and it "solves" the NAT traversal problem too.
> IMHO we should only give the choice between NAT traversal and 
> MOBIKE, i.e., MOBIKE should only detect the "just move behind 
> a NAT" case, and should *not* try to handle it (i.e., the 
> case will be considered as misconfiguration).
> 

nat prevention does not solve the nat traversal problem, obviously. 

we should give people the possibility to 
(a) allow the responder to use the ip address contained in the ike message
AND
(b) allow the responder to use ip address information in the header 
to derive some decisions. 

detecting only that you are behind a nat is insufficient to address all
scenarios people are looking at. 

ciao
hannes