RE: [EME] Traversing HIP-aware NATs and Firewalls: Problem Statement andRequirements

Hi Hannes,

I'm responding to your emails out of order...

This draft certainly is relevant.  I would not claim to have been intimately
familiar with it when we wrote the EME drafts, but speaking for myself I was
vaguely aware of it.  (As you can see, we were quite lazy about citing much
of anything.  Especially the design draft is meant to trigger getting
feedback...it is certainly our intent to do a better job with citations once
we think we are on the right track.)

As far as the HIP nat traversal stuff relates to NUTSS, Am I right in saying
that it suffers from the problem of assymetric paths (i.e. with multihomed
sites)?  If this is the case, then NUTSS seems very complimentary to HIP (as
Tom and others are suggesting).

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but am I right in assuming that with hip
nat/fw traversal, the middleboxes can authenticate the HIP setup, but not
data packets themselves (which after all are vanilla IPSec packets)?

PF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] 
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:09 PM
> To: eme@irtf.org
> Subject: [EME] Traversing HIP-aware NATs and Firewalls: 
> Problem Statement andRequirements
> 
> This document might be related and relevant:
> http://www.tschofenig.com/drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-na
> tfw-traversal-04.txt
> 
> I wonder whether someone ever looked at it.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EME mailing list
> EME@irtf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme
> 

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme