[IPsec] Question regarding security considerations with NAT-T scenario in IKEv2

Hi Group, I have question regarding security considerations with NAT-T scenario in IKEv2. According to ikev2-bis-04, section 2.23 --- There are cases where a NAT box decides to remove mappings that are still alive (for examp

Re: [IPsec] Handling Redirect Loops

Hi Yoav, On 7/29/09 9:13 PM, "Yoav Nir" wrote: > Hi Vijay. > > "default" is usually associated with a particular implementation or product. I > think it would be better to say "suggested value" rather than "default value". "default value" is the right terminology to use here. > Also, I don't s

Re: [IPsec] Handling Redirect Loops

Hi Vijay. "default" is usually associated with a particular implementation or product. I think it would be better to say "suggested value" rather than "default value". Also, I don't see a point in mandating that all products should have an extra knob for setting this value. For example, for an

[IPsec] Handling Redirect Loops

Hello, During the IESG review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-redirect, it was brought up that the text about handling redirect loops should be in the main body of the draft instead of the security considerations section. One of the ADs also wanted some default values to detect a loop. Here is the mod