Hi,
In general, it seems to me we are trying to solve more than we should,
and we should punt on some of the NAT use cases, leave them to
configuration or to out-of-protocol solutions like STUN and friends.
Maybe even DNS SRV registration.
Specifically:
- In the new text re: the Initiator sending IKE_TCP_SUPPORTED, I would
change "prevented... by network address translation" to "prevented by
policy". There are different ways to prevent a peer from being a
responder, including firewalls, NAT or plain configuration. All should
be included here.
- I'm feeling uncomfortable with the rudimentary NAT bypass mechanism
that we are proposing here: you're supposed to advertise a port number
on another device (on the NAT box). I am sure there are loads of
problems this will open up. Here's one: if we're talking about a very
large NAT device (one that uses multiple public addresses), isn't it
possible that the IP address allocated for the static NAT of the IKE
listening port is different from the source IP address of the initial
IKE request?
- Also, given the port advertising, do we still need the liveness check
described at the end of Sec. 3.2?
Thanks,
Yaron
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
