Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > > i'm in violent agreement. HAO processing should not be a MUST. > > HAO is not useful without verification and largely pointless unless > you're doing route optimization and can support a binding cache which > is large enough to be meaningful.
the point is this verification can be done in many ways. the point is processing of HAO gives you triangular routing, which is much better than reverse tunneling. talking about "black holes", the combination of reverse tunneling and route optimization is likely to cause loss of packets. with triangular routing and route optimization, you dont lose packets. anyway, I dont want to get into the argument, triangular routing Vs reverse tunneling. regards Vijay > > Given that there's already a way for a node to indicate "no thank you" > (icmp parameter problem) and given (like every other "interesting" > extension we've attempted at the IP layer) that there will likely be > HAO "black holes" due to firewall policy and/or dusty embedded code, I > don't see the value of forcing nodes to even spend the extra effort to > parse enough of the HAO to generate a different error. > > MN's will need to have code to parse the parameter problem form of the > error; why burden them with additional code to parse the other way to > encode the error message? > > - Bill -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
