Re: issue 34 proposal

I am assuming NAT change at ESP layer follows IKEv2 NAT-T i.e no return routability
check. Otherwise, the speedup obtained by the traditional IKEv2 NAT-T is lost and
there is no point in having this mechanism at all.

-mohan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "Tero Kivinen" <[email protected]>; "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:54 AM
Subject: RE: [Mobike] issue 34 proposal


Just to clarify...

If one does detect NAT change at ESP layer, what does one do?

Do we do a return routability check on the new address before updating
it's SADB?  It would seem logical, but just want to make sure we're on
the same page.

Stephane. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:23 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Mobike] issue 34 proposal
> 
> Jari Arkko wrote:
> > 
> > Tero Kivinen wrote:
> > 
> > >So perhaps we should say you MUST NOT do automatic update 
> with IKEv2 
> > >packets (breaks the probing), but you MAY do it for ESP packets?
> > >  
> > >
> > This would work for me (and the complexity cost would be 
> only on those 
> > implementations that actually do the MAY).
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me as well.
> 
> Best regards,
> Pasi
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
> 
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike