Re: Issue: NAT-T interaction (#3)

Tero Kivinen wrote:

> My proposal would be to keep NAT-T and MOBIKE separate and you use one
> of them at time. If you are moved inside the NAT, and your policy
> allows NAT-T, then you move from MOBIKE to NAT-T. There is no need to
> send any address update notifications etc, as the NAT-T have built-in
> automatic IP-address change.

I agree. But this would still leave some corner cases to worry about,
such as having a multihomed scenario with one side having a NAT and
the other not. Of course, you can move to NAT-T even on that case,
but then you won't be able to let the peer know your two addresses;
NAT-T only remembers the latest address. This may have an impact
if we want the peer to attempt failover based on a communication
problem with the current address.

--Jari