Subject: [Hipsec] API and LSI resolution

From: [email-masked] (Henderson, Thomas R)
Date: Fri Mar 12 10:59:00 2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From:=20
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:57 AM
> To: Pekka Nikander; Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] API and LSI resolution
>=20
>=20
> > > ii) Any collisions, if they are handled, are handled by
> > > host NAT at the host that discovers the local collision
> > > (that is, the stack may NAT the LSI into one that doesn't
> > > conflict, and take care if it sees the changed LSI in the
> > > application data stream to flip it back)
> >
> > This is OK to me as IPv4 apps must be prepared to
> > deal with NATs anyway.  However, I also see HIP as
> > a great opportunity to hide all NATting from apps.
>=20
> The plan was to handle connections like this (if I remember=20
> correctly Seoul=20
> discussions):
>=20
yes, this is the plan.

>=20
> The NAT function described above is not nice and better=20
> proposals are welcome.
>=20

Agreed-- door is open for these in the future, but this seems to
be the cleanest way to close this issue for now.

Tom