Brian Zill wrote:
> P.S. As an aside, it occurs to me that it might be clearer to define a new
> "Intermediate Destination Options" header to take the place of DO1. Then it
> could be declared that this new header (if present) MUST appear before the
> Routing Header, and that mutable options (if present) MUST appear in either
> this new header or a Hop-by-Hop header. Or to put it another way, mutable
> options wouldn't be allowed any more in a Destination Options header. This
> would also make the spec cleaner - it could get rid of the special case
> notations explaining the difference between DO1 and DO2.
Brian
I agree with you that Destionation Options headers need to be clarified. In
fact, Ken Powel and I talked about this a few days agoa and came up with almost
the same solution you have described above. The only difference was that we did
not require the Routing Header. In our conversation, this "Intermediate
Destination
Options" (I kind of like this name) would go after Hop-by-Hop (if present) or
after the IPv6 header (if HbH is not present). This header would be
non-fragmentable.
This header would provide the location for any options that may be mutable
and/or
any options that may have to be examined by some of the hops along the way to
the destination, eg. Tunnel Limit Option, Home Address Option, etc.
-vlad
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladislav Yasevich Tel: (603) 884-1079
Compaq Computer Corp. Fax: (435) 514-6884
110 Spit Brook Rd ZK03-3/T07
Nashua, NH 03062
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
