Subject: RE: [NSIS] GIST-aware NAT Traversal

From: "Christian Dickmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:30:58 +0200

Hi Andrew,

> [snip scenario]
> > Should I add an entry to my routing table in the Responding node
that
> > corresponds to MRI instead of MRI'? Did I miss anything else?
> > The same problem applies to subsequent Data messages and is
> independent
> > from D-Mode/C-Mode.
> 
> Section 7.2.3, penultimate paragraph says:
>    A GIST node receiving such a message MUST use the MRI from the NAT-
>    Traversal object as the key to index its internal routing state; it
>    MAY also store the translated MRI for additional (e.g. diagnostic)
>    information, but this is not used in the GIST processing.  The
>    remainder of GIST processing is unchanged.
> Which, I think, covers your question.

If I am not mistaken, the text you quote does not apply to my question.
The "such a message" of the quoted text refers to "A NAT will intercept 
D-mode messages with the normal encapsulation containing such echoed 
NAT-Traversal objects.", i.e. Response messages. So the "receiving GIST
Node" is the querying node. 
My question however was regarding the behavior of the Responding node.

> However, I can't see a mention of what MRI will be delivered to the
> NSLP. The translated one is the one you want (since you are the other
> side of the NAT), but storing this is only a 'MAY'.

Which MRI is delivered to the NSLP is of course an important aspect.
But,
we should talk about the NSLP once we have sorted out the GIST 3-way
handshake.

Regards,
Christian Dickmann

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: Andrew McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:02:55 +0100

Hi Christian,

> My question however was regarding the behavior of the Responding node.

Ah, yes, you're right (I've even scribbled "Response?" by the phrase
"such a message" on my copy). (This means that some details in the other
e-mail I've just sent are slightly confused, though the core issues remain.)

So, as far as I can see the draft doesn't explicitly say which form of
the MRI should form the routing state. I agree that in order to manage

> we should talk about the NSLP once we have sorted out the GIST 3-way

In order to handle this, the translated MRI appears to be necessary as well.

Andrew