Re: tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-06.txt

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

On 2 Dec 2008, at 19:51, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Thanks for your review, Colin.
>
> I agree that fixes or better explanations of the background should  
> be given for the points that you raised. It seems that you and  
> Hesham are making progress on what needs to be added to the  
> document, great!
>
> The only item that I too am somewhat worried about in your list is  
> the address replacement by broken NATs and the tricks used to  
> prevent that. I feel that the best way to deal with that is to  
> document this as a potential problem -- the protocol already has  
> tools to provide a far better obfuscation technique than XOR --  
> just turn on encryption if this turns out to be a problem and the  
> device in question cannot be ripped out of the network.

Agreed.

> Do we have any information about how widespread such NATs might be?  
> RFC 5389 just says "some NATs".


Not really, but something that broken can't be common: it'd cause too  
many obvious problems.

--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf