Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt

2016-07-01 Thread Miika Komu
Hi Jeff, On 06/30/2016 07:08 PM, Jeff Ahrenholz wrote: Miika, On 6/30/16, 1:12 AM, "Miika Komu" wrote: Is it actually a problem for the Responder that two different Initiators happen to claim different SPIs? The Initiators have different IP addresses (or at least

Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt

2016-06-30 Thread Jeff Ahrenholz
On 6/30/16, 9:06 AM, "Miika Komu" wrote: >> Seems like a good idea. No ESP_TRANSFORM -> no need to establish two-way >> comms between peers. >> For example, when performing a registration procedure with a relay server. > > The direct path could be, of course, used for

Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt

2016-06-30 Thread Jeff Ahrenholz
Miika, > On 6/30/16, 1:12 AM, "Miika Komu" wrote: > > Is it actually a problem for the Responder that two different Initiators > happen to claim different SPIs? The Initiators have different IP > addresses (or at least UDP ports if they are behind the same NAT).

Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt

2016-06-24 Thread Jeff Ahrenholz
Hi Miika, First of all, nice work with all of your changes! This is a big draft but seems much clearer without the RFC 5770 delta. Here’s some further comments on your questions... > * What should do with compatibility with RFC 6078 (HICCUPS) I think you can omit this, since RFC 6078 is for

Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt

2016-06-23 Thread Jeff Ahrenholz
Hi Miika, I was reviewing this section... > * 4.12.3. Handling Conflicting SPI Values > * Should the Responder send a notify on SPI collision? > * Removed text about registering with multiple addresses because I >think this does not work with HIP (or at least, requires multihoming)

Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt

2016-06-23 Thread Miika Komu
Hi, high-level changes are as follows: * The new draft version follows the ice-bis version, so I removed aggressive nomination * Clarifications in the subsections in section 4.12. Relaying Considerations * Fixed some nits Open questions: * What should do with compatibility with RFC