[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Son-of-IKE Performance

To: "'Steven M. Bellovin'" <smb@research.att.com>
Subject: RE: Son-of-IKE Performance
From: "Andrew Krywaniuk" <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:07:06 -0500
Cc: <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20011208035926.C4BB47B55@berkshire.research.att.com>
Reply-To: <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

> >Here's a question. Have the authors of JFK given any thought
> to how (if?)
> >they will incorporate NAT-traversal? With IKEv2, the already
> completed
> >drafts from IKEv1 can be presumably carried forward.
>
> JFK doesn't rely on IP addresses at all -- it can pass through NATs
> just fine.


The issue is not whether JFK can pass through NATs. The problem is that
ESP/AH traffic can't go through NATs. We just went
through a long design process of extending IKE to help ESP get through NATs
and I'm wondering how/if JFK will tackle this issue.

Jan replied to ask why people aren't debating the requirements draft. I
guess what I'm saying is that I think this is a requirement.

Andrew
-------------------------------------------
There are no rules, only regulations. Luckily,
history has shown that with time, hard work,
and lots of love, anyone can be a technocrat.

References:

Re: Son-of-IKE Performance

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>

Prev by Date: comments on jfk and ikev2 drafts
Next by Date: Re: Comments on IKEv2
Prev by thread: Re: Son-of-IKE Performance
Next by thread: Re: Son-of-IKE Performance
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread