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

Hi

1) I agree that the mobility and multihoming should be included in to the new scope.

2) STUN vs. Native! My opinion is that we should go for native as it reduces the implementation complexity quite a bit and there is not that much as is re-usable components in ICE/STUN.

   Regards,
     Jan

On May 3, 2010, at 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