NAT-T ipaddress conflict
"Umasankar Mukkara" <mumasankar@novell.com> Tue, 07 May 2002 10:27 UTC
Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g47AR3L14976; Tue, 7 May 2002 03:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA08948 Tue, 7 May 2002 05:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <scd74b39.057@prv-mail25.provo.novell.com>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Beta
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 03:34:10 -0600
From: Umasankar Mukkara <mumasankar@novell.com>
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: NAT-T ipaddress conflict
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-874"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lists.tislabs.com id FAA08945
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Hi, NAT-Traversal and UDP-Encapsulation drafts do not suggest a way to deal with IP address conflict behind two different NATs. The recent draft "draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-02.txt" also says that that the implementations should devise their own way to solve this problem. (in section 5.2 Tunnel Mode Conflict) Are there any references available suggesting a solution to this issue? I read that NAT functionality built-in into the ipsec stack on the VPN GW solves this problem. Could somebody provide an overview (or already available stuff on the web) TIA, Umasankar.
- NAT-T ipaddress conflict Umasankar Mukkara