Re: [Hipsec] NAT traversal and the standards track work

Hi,

it seems we also have consensus on going native.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 03/05/2010 12:47 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> it seems we have consensus on including the mobility and multihoming
> extensions in the scope of our new to-be-chartered NAT traversal effort.
> 
> With respect to whether we want to go native or still use the STUN-based
> connectivity checks, it would be good to have more discussions on the list.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> On 26/04/2010 1:06 PM, Tobias Heer wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.04.2010 um 06:51 schrieb Henderson, Thomas R:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org
>>>> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:45 AM
>>>> To: HIP
>>>> Subject: [Hipsec] NAT traversal and the standards track work
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> we need to decide what to do with NAT traversal when moving to the
>>>> standards track. We have the following drafts:
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal/
>>>>
>>>> The draft above will soon become an Experimental RFC.
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keranen-hip-native-nat-
>>>> traversal/
>>>>
>>>> The draft above proposes implementing HIP-based connectivity checks
>>>> instead of STUN-based ones.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-melen-hip-nat-mm-00.txt
>>>>
>>>> The draft above, which needs to be revised, describes the mobility and
>>>> multihoming extensions for NAT traversal.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to hear people's views on what to do here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gonzalo, I would like to see both topics (NAT traversal, and mobility management aspects of NAT traversal) on the revised charter, as the second phase of standards-track work, as we discussed in Anaheim.  I am neutral on the questions of which one of the two drafts to adopt (if a choice needs to be made now) and on whether the nat-mm draft should remain separate or should be combined into one NAT traversal draft.
>>>
>> I share Tom's opinion here. I would like to see both progress (provided there is enough manpower to support both). However, I think it might be useful to address mobility in the actual NAT documents since it poses special challenges that are special to NATs. 
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>> - Tom
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --  
>>
>> Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student
>> Distributed Systems Group 
>> RWTH Aachen University, Germany
>> tel: +49 241 80 207 76
>> web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 