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

Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T

To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Subject: Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
Date: 10 Mar 2003 13:54:12 -0500
Cc: Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com, "Andrew Krywaniuk" <askrywan@hotmail.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: <200303101039.h2AAd3of019316@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
References: <200303101039.h2AAd3of019316@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> writes:

>    How important is it for everyone to support NAT-T?
> 
> => I don't believe a MUST support is a good idea because this makes no
> sense for an IPv6 implementation.

Can we agree on "MUST support NAT-T if you support IPv4"?  If you ONLY
support v6, then NAT-T can be relegated to a SHOULD or MAY.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
  - From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>

References:
- Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
  - From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>

Prev by Date: RE: QoS and IKEv2
Next by Date: Re: suites vs. a la carte and IPcomp in IKEv2-05
Prev by thread: Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
Next by thread: Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread