State of IPSec NAT Traversal drafts?
Joshua Graessley <jgraessley@apple.com> Tue, 20 May 2003 19:51 UTC
Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28146 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 15:51:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA17479 Tue, 20 May 2003 13:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:04:53 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Subject: State of IPSec NAT Traversal drafts?
From: Joshua Graessley <jgraessley@apple.com>
To: Ipsec <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <8E63FBDC-8AED-11D7-908D-000A959D832C@apple.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
What is the state of the IPSec NAT traversal drafts? The following two drafts contain very useful modifications to IKE and a very useful method of encapsulating IPSec so it will pass through NATs. I haven't seen any discussion of these drafts in quite some time. Is there a reason? We need a solution now and don't have time to wait for IKEv2. These drafts seem to fill that solution except that vendor id specified in the ike draft is incomplete until the draft becomes an RFC. That makes creating interoperable implementations impossible. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-05.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-06.txt Thanks, -josh
- State of IPSec NAT Traversal drafts? Joshua Graessley