Re: issue 34 proposal

Francis Dupont <[email protected]> Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:44:26 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.mobike
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Francis Dupont wrote:
   
   >=> note that I disagree.

   Ok. Can you expand the above a bit with
   some reasons and/or alternative proposals?
   
=> I am for making the standard mechanism for IKEv2/NAT-T (update
by ESP) simply mandatory in MOBIKE environments (option 1bis).
This is not against the charter (no new things for NAT-T) and
can be considered as a MOBIKE profile compatible with the
"mainstream" IKEv2.

Regards

[email protected]

PS: I don't buy the hardware argument (nor such hardware :-).