>In terms of the API (and IP_RECVDSTOPTS in particular) we can presumably
>satisfy both of you by saying that the content of the IP_RECVDSTOPTS ancillary
>data item, when it contains is a home address option, has the address
>field in the home address option set to the care of address i.e. the
>source address of the packet when it arrived.
>
>This doesn't require modifying the packet when it arrived (Rich's concern
>as I understand it) - instead it requires some care when constructing
>the IP_RECVDSTOPTS ancillary data item.
>Of course, implementations that process the home address option by
>doing a swap have less work to perform when constructing the ancillary data
>item.
>
>Should we put this in rfc2292bis?
I personally think the above proposal is okay for me, and solves
my original question.
as passing home address option as-is does not add any information
at all (you can get the home address by getpeername) it is better.
(it is a bit twisted, I admit)
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
