Re: Issue 41: Mandate NAT prevention if not doing NAT-T?
Francis Dupont <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In your previous mail you wrote: I'm curious, how exactly does RFC 3519 mitigate this issue? => short lifetimes (so the attacker has to stay and increases its chance to be caught). The whole thing is explained in the security considerations... [email protected] PS: mobike has no binding lifetimes (nor in fact bindings, its support is for readdressing not mobility).