>there have never been any suboptions defined for the home address
>option.
>> draft 07: type, length, an IPv6 address and suboptions,
>> type # = "196???"
>> draft 08-16: type, length, an IPv6 address and suboptions, type # = 201
>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.
one problem is that draft 07-16 are silent about HAO processing
when unknown suboption is attached. from the language in draft 16,
i guess receiver should ignore suboptions if they are unknown to them
(otherwise we cannot allow "future extension" - old implementation
will not be able to talk with new implementation), but i could be wrong.
anyways, the above is not the main focus of this discussion.
itojun
---
Sub-Options
Additional information, associated with this Home Address
option, that need not be present in all Home Address options
sent. This use of sub-options also allows for future
extensions to the format of the Home Address option to be
defined. Currently, no valid sub-options are defined for use
in a Home Address option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
