Jinmei,
>
> I agree. If it is really easy to deal with the send side as you said,
> it would be the best candidate (so I'd like to know the details).
>
I had missed the change in receive side semantics. More badness. Why
can't the order of the setsockopt calls establish the order of the
routing header and the destination options? I don't see why it isn't that
simple except in the case where ancillary data and sticky options are
intermingled.
This is another reason why it was better to allow ancillary data to override
ALL sticky options rather than just like sticky options. This change has
substantially complicated the implementation for little benefit. Oh well.
Just put this mess to bed.
tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
