Re: draft-williams-btns-00.txt

Pekka Nikander writes:
> > usage scenarios. Is there some potential usage that we
> > are preventing if we don't allow tunnel mode?
> 
> IIRC, someone (David Black?) mentioned at the Paris meeting that some  
> IP storage solutions currently require tunnel mode.  Therefore our  
> f2f decision was to include tunnel mode where the inner and outer  
> addresses are equal.

Also NAT-T is simplier if done on tunnel mode, no need to mess around
with original IP-addresses and updating checksums. In NAT-T case the
inner and outer addresses are not equal, as outer address is the
NAT-boxeses address, and inner address is the endpoints address. I do
not think if the NAT-T is relevant to the btns...
--

-- 
kivinen <at> safenet-inc.com
_______________________________________________