Hi Yaov, Thanks for the information.
What you seem to be talking about is iterative topology discovery, and not data plane packet forwarding. I will try to clarify it further. Thanks again, Vishwas On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Yoav Nir <y...@checkpoint.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 2012, at 11:20 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote: > > > Hi Yaov, > > > > I do see NAT traversal as a requirement and should be made part of the > problem statement. I however do not see it as a resolution of #213 or #214. > I see resolution for #218 and #211 talk about NAT. > > > > Routing is about how packet is sent to the nexthop closer to the > destination, which is what this issue is about in my view. It is what > determines if the destination and source are one hop away or can traverse > multiple gateways along the way. So if you only allow direct routing (or > through hubs), there is no way packets can traverse any other way. > > > > What you seem to suggest is that there are ways in which VoIP can > traverse NAT at both the sender and the receiver. That in my view is a > solution suggestion, that you seem to be giving. > > > > Can you give more details of what you mean by #214? > > #214 comes from a question that was raised. It assumes that part of the > solution would be nodes that learn about the topology from other nodes. > > The question was, is discovering the topology an iterative process, or a > one-shot process. Suppose node A asks node B, but node B does not have the > information (but knows where to get it). Does node B tell node A to go ask > node C, or does it ask node C itself, and relay the answer to node A? > > The text currently does not mandate one or the other. > > Yoav > > >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
