RE: Another NAT Traversal question

["Jayant Shukla" <jshukla@trlokom.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
[mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]
> On Behalf Of Francis Dupont
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:15 PM
> To: Jayant Shukla
> Cc: radia.perlman@sun.com; ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: Another NAT Traversal question
> 
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    The checksum is being fixed according to the new IP addresses in
the IP
>    header and therefore you don't need the original IP address.
> 
> => so you give up the transport checksum ?
> 

Hi Francis,

I am not sure I understand what you mean. My explanation is based on the
draft. 

>    >From what I recall, the authors had given up on the transport mode
and
>    one of them had stated on this list that only 'tunnel mode' will be
>    pushed for v2.
> 
> => I am afraid that there is no consensus to drop the transport mode,
> so as the NAT traversal is in the charter, there is a problem to
> really solve.
> 

fair enough! 

Regards,
Jayant
www.trlokom.com