Re: Issue 24: NAT prevention details (was: Review of draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-00)
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I agree that the naming needs to change. Maybe
initiator -------------DISALLOW_NAT------------------------------->
<-----------UNEXPECTED_NAT_DETECTED-------responder
I'm also wondering about this text in Section 2.7:
If the values do match, the responder initializes (local_address,
local_port, peer_address, peer_port) in the to-be-created IKE_SA with
values from the IP header. The same applies if neither
NAT_PREVENTION nor NAT_DETECTION_*_IP payloads were included, or if
the responder does not support NAT Traversal.
which would seem to indicate that if you don't include any
NAT-D payloads you get NAT-prevention by default... perhaps
this would be the right way to signal DISALLOW_NAT -- but
how would you do the comparison then?
--Jari
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 04:25, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] writes:
>>
>>
>>>that contain NATs. If the responder notices that a NAT is
>>>present anyway, the request fails with error code NAT_PREVENTED.
>>>
>>>
>>NAT_PREVENTED would say that you somehow managed to get rid of the
>>NAT...
>>
>>
>How about "NAT_DETECTED" or "UNEXPECTED_NAT_DETECTED" ?
>
> - Bill
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mobike mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
>
>
>
>