Re: Issue 41: Mandate NAT prevention if not doing NAT-T?

Francis Dupont wrote:

> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>   The text that your provided above Francis looks like
>   material that could be included in the security
>   considerations section. Of course, we'd have to also
>   mention that under some conditions, the attack is
>   temporary. For instance, if the real node sends packets
>   after the attacker has left, the problem is corrected.
>   
>=> unfortunately this is not true: the problem can be corrected
>only with an explicit action (an address update to the right address).
>  
>
Right. The real node needs to do an address update.

--Jari