> > What exactly do you imagine about the implementation that supports
> > mobile IPv6 in the kernel?
> > If it generates, does checksumming, and
> > sends a packet with a mobile header completely within the kernel (the
> > KAME implementation apparently acts like this), it can do so without
> > conflicting with any API spec. So I don't get why this is the reason
> > for specifying the behavior on a raw socket used by applications
> > (i.e., not by the kernel.)
>
> I guess I was originally looking at it from the recieve side. On
> a aystem that already implements MIPv6 message handling at the
> network layer (in the kernel), it's rather pointless to set the
> IPV6_CHECKSUM option since the packet will be checked anyway.
>
IPV6_CHECKSUM is already implemented through IPv6 Socket API, so there
is no
additional work to support IPV6_CHECKSUM socket option for MH protocol
in
the API layer when checksum is already performed at the kernel. Kernel
needs
to handle a few lines of code for not doing checksum when the option was
not
set. So, I don't think it's a big issue to debate about IPV6_CHECKSUM,
let's
keep the way it is.
Thanks,
-Samita
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
