Subject: Re: [MEXT] tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-06.txt

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:51:08 +0200

Thanks for your review, Colin.

I agree that fixes or better explanations of the background should be 
given for the points that you raised. It seems that you and Hesham are 
making progress on what needs to be added to the document, great!

The only item that I too am somewhat worried about in your list is the 
address replacement by broken NATs and the tricks used to prevent that. 
I feel that the best way to deal with that is to document this as a 
potential problem -- the protocol already has tools to provide a far 
better obfuscation technique than XOR -- just turn on encryption if this 
turns out to be a problem and the device in question cannot be ripped 
out of the network. Do we have any information about how widespread such 
NATs might be? RFC 5389 just says "some NATs".

Jari

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:42:44 +0000

On 2 Dec 2008, at 19:51, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I agree that fixes or better explanations of the background should  
> be given for the points that you raised. It seems that you and  
> Hesham are making progress on what needs to be added to the  
> document, great!
>
> The only item that I too am somewhat worried about in your list is  
> the address replacement by broken NATs and the tricks used to  
> prevent that. I feel that the best way to deal with that is to  
> document this as a potential problem -- the protocol already has  
> tools to provide a far better obfuscation technique than XOR --  
> just turn on encryption if this turns out to be a problem and the  
> device in question cannot be ripped out of the network.

Agreed.

> Do we have any information about how widespread such NATs might be?  
> RFC 5389 just says "some NATs".

Not really, but something that broken can't be common: it'd cause too  
many obvious problems.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/