> I need a clarification about the IPV6_PATHMTU ancillary data item
> defined in draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-01.txt. The draft does not
> (explicitly) mention how the application knows the corresponding
> destination address for the returned MTU value. Which is correct?
>
> 1. this option has its meaning for a connected socket only. The
> destination is the foreign address of the socket.
> 2. the destination address should be specified in the msg_name member
> returned by the corresponding recvmsg() call.
> 3. the current spec is buggy. The ancillary data should contain the
> socket address structure for the destination.
> 4. others
The spec is clearly incomplete in this area.
I do think we want this to work for unconnected datagram sockets i.e. 1 is
not an option.
Does the implementors have any preferences between #2 and #3?
Doing #3 would require defining a data structure containing an MTU field
plus a socketaddr_in6.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
