I'm missing something obvious. Why shouldn't it simply report whatver IP address the vat *tells* it to report? The VLS has no way to determine the port number at which the vat accepts connections in any case, so there is already vat-alleged stuff that needs to be accepted by the VLS.
shap
[-] The issue isn't protection, it's routing.
I was asking in case the IP address of the registering Vat, as perceived by
ISP rather than the registering Vat, is what the VLS should report to
other's as the IP at which to try contacting that Vat. OTOH, if this is
useless for overcoming remapping confusion, then this is a non-issue.