diff --git a/doc/dev/design/NAT-address-discovery.rst b/doc/dev/design/NAT-address-discovery.rst
index 9b1036d6d4..b49edf0f74 100644
--- a/doc/dev/design/NAT-address-discovery.rst
+++ b/doc/dev/design/NAT-address-discovery.rst
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ NAT IP/port discovery
 *********************
 
 - Author(s): Marc Frei, Jan Luan, Tilmann Zäschke
-- Last updated: 2024-11-25
+- Last updated: 2024-12-11
 - Status: **WIP**
 - Discussion at: :issue:`4517`
 
@@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ To avoid potential misunderstandings: this proposal only addresses the problem o
 the goal to also support NAT traversal techniques such as NAT hole punching SCION-based servers and peer-to-peer
 scenarios.
 
+Also note that the NAT issue only exists for traffic between separate ASes. If both the client and the server are located within
+the same AS, the server can simply send returning packets to the underlay source address of the client (which is visible to the server in this case).
+
 The implementation on the protocol level could be done in several ways:
 
 1.  STUN: The BR needs to detect if an incoming packet is a STUN packet, and if it is, respond to the STUN request.
@@ -231,4 +234,24 @@ Implementation
 Necessary border router and snet library modifications have been coded for three approaches proposed in the *Proposal* section:
 STUN/UDP/IP, STUN/SCION/UDP/IP, and SCMP message extension.
 It was agreed that a PR would be created for the STUN/UDP/IP variant.
+The STUN specification used is the newer specification (RFC5389).
 Support in client libraries (PAN, JPAN) will be added subsequently.
+
+Client Side Considerations
+--------------------------
+- AS local traffic:
+  For communication within the same AS, the endhost should send returning packets to the underlay source address of the sender
+  simply by reversing src/dst addresses of the underlay in addition to reversing the src/dst addresses in the SCION header.
+  The sending endhost would then not need to use STUN.
+
+  Rationale: Since AS local communication does not involve a border router, it would be unclear which border router the client
+  should choose, if it were to send a STUN request. The AS may be split into multiple subnets, with different border routers in each subnet.
+  Therefore, not using STUN at all and instead using the above method seems like the best option in this case.
+
+- NAT mapping time-out:
+  The (private port <-> public port) mappings kept by the NAT device expire if no traffic is sent for some time (> ~5min).
+  If the client does not send packets to a border router for some longer period of time, the STUN procedure needs to be repeated
+  to determine whether the NAT has assigned a new public port for the client. This causes additional latency when the client starts sending packets again,
+  which may be undesirable if the application is time-sensitive (e.g. latency measurement with Ping).
+  Alternatively, the client library could send some sort of "keep-alive" packets to the BR on a regular interval to ensure the NAT mapping stays alive.
+  This could be implemented as a configurable option, if needed. -> TBD