[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IKEv2 and NAT traversal
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Henry Spencer wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2001, Markus Stenberg wrote:
> > > Since that NAT people insisted on running on the same port using a
> > > terrible hack to get around a number of imaginary problems, frankly, I
> > > think that this is the NAT people's problem.
> >
> > I'm tired of reiterating same stupid arguments over and over. See
> > draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-justification-00.txt section 7.2.
>
> Perhaps you need to come up with some non-stupid arguments, because
> section 7.2 is pretty feeble justification for such a gut-wrenchingly bad
> design.
Without going into the question of whether the current traversal
draft should go forward as is, could one of the ikev2 authors comment
on this?
Is there a specific reason why IKEv2 *needs* to break the current
traversal draft? I don't see a reason myself; why not swap the
order of the cookie (SPI) fields? (It is actually more common to
have the sender SPI/cookie/port first anyway.)
-Sami
References: