Francis Francis Dupont wrote: > > If so, how can a user specify a couple of destination > options headers before and after a routing header? > > => he cannot but he doesn't need it and he cannot specify > a destination option header just before a fragmentation header. > IPV6_RTHDRDSTOPTS is unnecessary and misleading. > ... > > - 12: see 9.2 > > (again) I'm not 100% sure about the point. Do you propose to remove > IPV6_RTHDRDSTOPTS from this section, too? (If we can reach consensus > in 9.2, I'll of course revise this section accordingly.) > > => yes, please remove IPV6_RTHDRDSTOPTS from everywhere.
Why do you belive the IPV6_RTHDRDSTOPTS is unnecessary? Is it because of the lack of options that would go into this header? Or is it because of the restrictive ordering (i.e 2460 recomended ordering)? -vlad P.S. >From what I remember of the discussion about header ordering constraints was to stabilize this API and then figure something out that would not be restrictive. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
