In your previous mail you wrote:
I believed before and believe now that this is the better way to go.
I never really liked the IPV6_RTHDRDSTOPTS option.
=> I understand your opinion but we have to provide a way to denote
the position for the sending side.
As I said, I don't believe that this is necessary. Of course I may be
completely misunderstanding the nature of the problems.
=> if you have both note 1 and note 3 destination option headers to send
you need a way to code this. The kernel should not have to parse headers
in order to understand what you want according to options.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: at ETSI bake-off an implementor panel asked for this (summary: ok to
add a new position but please cleanup this, two are already too many,
three will be a real mess).
PPS: more I think about this, more the stack API seems to good path...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
