Itojun, there have never been any suboptions defined for the home address option.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >The home address option is the same in format as the > >previous version. The additional requirement now is > >only that now it's required to be secured somehow. > > no it is not. also option type # got changed > draft 04-06: type, length and an IPv6 address, type # = "196???" > draft 07: type, length, an IPv6 address and suboptions, > type # = "196???" > draft 08-16: type, length, an IPv6 address and suboptions, type # = 201 > draft 17-18: type, length and an IPv6 address, type # = 201 > > note that existence/non-existence of suboption will affect validation > of incoming messages. when there is no vaild sub-option defined, I would expect one to write code which would drop the packet, if the packet came with some sub-option. > no wonder vendors ship without HAO support, it is impossible to > support something that changes this often. it has been an internet draft so far. people who implement internet drafts do it knowing very well that it could change. > as for *BSD/KAME, it is > decided that we won't merge anything related to mobile-ip6 into main > *BSD distribution until mobile-ip6 becomes RFC (so it won't show up > onto ExtremeWare, JunOS, MacOS X, ...). okay. fair enough. regards Vijay -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
