At 1:03 PM -0700 5/29/01, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Where there is ambiguity, however, is in the host's construction
> of the routing header. Consider the situation where you have a
> mobile host behind a mobile router, each of which send binding
> updates to a correspondent node. How does the correspondent
> node know which order to put the routing headers in?
Mike,
You'll have to spend more time educating me on the details of the
scenario you have in mind. I would hope and expect that some
encapsulation/decapsulation is going on at the mobile router,
in which case you might have one routing header as part of the
inner (encapsulated) packet, and one routing header as part of
the outer (encapsulating) packet, which is a different case than
having multiple routing headers in a single extension-header
chain. I was assuming the question applied to the latter case,
though the semantics of encapsulation case is also obvious.
How you decide when to include a routing header and what to put in
it are questions largely unanswered by the IPv6 specs (as is the
case with source routes in IPv4). We just provide the primitive;
it's up to others to write the programs to use it. I guess Mobile
IPv6 has done that for one case (though I *really* wish they had
specified the use of encapsulation instead of extension-header-
insertion; that would have eliminated *much* ambiguity and confusion).
In the absence of such specs, the Routing header contents will just
continue to be provided manually, as in source-routed pings and
traceroutes.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
