In your previous mail you wrote:
Bottom line _proposal_:
Mandatory placements:
- Home Address option between Routing and Fragment Headers
- Binding Update after ESP.
=> I agree, home address and tunnel encapsulation limit between routing
and fragment, all other destination options (binding XXX) after ESP.
Comments?
=> this makes three placements for a destination option header, two
were already too many. The whole destination option header concept
should be redone, for instance my proposal is:
- kill the placement between hop-by-hop and routing headers
(not used, just make implementations more complex)
- keep the placement between routing and fragment headers for type 60
- get a new type from IANA for placement after ESP (IPCOMP in fact)
This will give in the future simplest/cleanest implementations, the price
is incompatibility for mobile IPv6 implementations (which should be
incompatible in some cases with any proposal :-).
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: I have added the IPng WG mailing list because this is in its scope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
