Have you ever tried routing IPSec traffic through a NAT? It sucks. Oh and NATs are everywhere, every home, every office, so that alone might hamper adoption...

Have you ever tried routing IPSec traffic through a NAT? It sucks. Oh and NATs are everywhere, every home, every office, so that alone might hamper adoption... Here's a Cisco article that touches on it: https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/64281/how-does-nat-t-work-ipsec https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/64281/how-does-nat-... Wikipedia even talks about the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal#IPsec_traversal_across_NAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal#IPsec_traversal_a... Maybe when IPv6 is common and NAT goes away... But frankly NAT is too useful as a "firewall" surrogate. Plus what does IPSec really bring that SSL doesn't? It hides port numbers? Meh. For the headache that IPSec setup is, I'll live with the NSA seeing I connected to port 80. Even with IPSec they still know the IPs on both sides. For VPNs give me OpenVPN over L2TP/IPSec any day of the week (plus setting up UDP encapsulation on Windows is a huge PITA).