Subject: [Hipsec] MAST: A perhaps simpler alternativity to HIP?

From: [email-masked] (Henderson, Thomas R)
Date: Fri Aug 29 14:41:00 2003

This seems most like a generalization of the SCTP approach.

Some differences with respect to HIP:
- uses nonces instead of permanent HIs
- does not require setup to precede transport session initiation
- it makes a different choice with respect to NAT handling--
HIT effectively substitutes IPsec protection for transport
checksums.  MAST tries to keep use of transport checksum.
The difficulty in this approach is that MAST must then
know at the end system how a NAT may transform its IP
addresses and port numbers.  It proposes a PROBE message for this. =20
If the addresses learned by the PROBE reliably map to the addresses
that the NAT will use for a subsequent TCP segment, then it=20
probably can work, although I am not sure that all NATs will=20
transform the PROBE and the subsequent TCP segment to the same
port number.

Tom