Re: [Hipsec] HIP Native NAT Traversal

It will be easier to demultiplex connectivity checks for different HAs, if
we use HIP native NAT traversal

ICE is not a RFC yet. Therefore, it is not reliable. We have to consider the
incompatibility of  ICE versions and also STUN message versions.

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> wrote:

> On 04/09/2010 04:14 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>  Hi,
>>
>> in Anaheim, we decided to continue discussing on the list the following
>> draft:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keranen-hip-native-nat-traversal/
>>
>> In particular, I would like to see discussions on the lessons learned
>> from the STUN-based implementations and potential benefits of
>> implementing STUN-like functionality in HIP.
>>
>
> from a protocol design perspective, demultiplexing of HIP, ESP and STUN
> packets is complicated. At implementation level, this introduced an
> additional requirement of packet capture using iptables. I believe this part
> would become cleaner design and implementation-wise by replacing STUN with
> HIP.
>
> It actually took quite a lot effort to hook in a standalone ICE library to
> the base exchange code. I believe it would also further complicate the
> mobility code.
>
> +1 for the new draft, I believe having a single control plane instead of
> two makes things simpler. I would suggest the new draft to replace the
> existing one for standards track.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>

-- 
Best Regards

Santtu (Nick name)
Xiang Liu

Operation Manager
Frosmo Ltd.
http://www.frosmo.com
twitter.com/Frosmo

Erottajankatu 15-17A
00130 Helsinki,
Finland

mobile: +358 44 3688809
fax: +358 20 7419 9099
Email: santtu.liu@frosmo.com
MSN: frogsir@hotmail.com