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

Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T

To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
Subject: Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:55:53 +0100
cc: Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com, "Andrew Krywaniuk" <askrywan@hotmail.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of 10 Mar 2003 13:54:12 EST. <sjmwuj79hnv.fsf@kikki.mit.edu>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   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"?

=> I am not in favor of a MUST which has nothing to do with
interoperability, IMHO we should let the market do its job...
And I don't believe implementors who still have NAT-T support
in their plans like to become not compliant.

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

Follow-Ups:
- Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
  - From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>

References:
- Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
  - From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>

Prev by Date: Re: SPI in Delete Payload of IKE / IKEv2
Next by Date: Re: SPI in Delete Payload of IKE / IKEv2
Prev by thread: Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
Next by thread: Re: bidding down attach on NAT-T
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread