In your previous mail you wrote:
I agree with you that the existing choices for ordering AH
and Destination Options are not sufficient. In my mind,
the first and most serious error, that affects the placement
of the Home Address option, is it has to go before AH, but
there is no need at all for it to be processed by the
intermediate routing points of a routing header.
Therefore, I'd like to suggest that in the Mobile IPv6
specification, we enable the placement of Destination Options
after the Routing Header, but before the Fragment Header.
This will enable the correct placement of the Home Address
destination option, and it will greatly simplify any needed
firewall treatment.
=> we agree. We'll get three kinds of destination options extension
headers:
- "note 1" which are not used (IMHO we should garbage collected them).
- new DO headers between the routing header (if any) and the fragmentation
header (if any). I believe the tunnel encapsulation limit should
go there too (ie. with the home address option) because this will
limit over-encapsulated fragments (and over-encapsulation would produce
fragments).
- "note 3" well known DO headers which will be used today only for
binding options then should get a new value for its next-header type
(this will not introduce major interoperability problems and will
make things far simpler to understand ans to implement).
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: this mail is the result of a meeting at IPv6 bake-off organized by ETSI
between all present mobile IPv6 gurus...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
