Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Placement for Binding Update and Home Address options

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:27:30 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   Bottom line _proposal_:
   
   Mandatory placements:
           - Home Address option between Routing and Fragment Headers
           - Binding Update after ESP.
   
=> I agree, home address and tunnel encapsulation limit between routing
and fragment, all other destination options (binding XXX) after ESP.

   Comments?
   
=> this makes three placements for a destination option header, two
were already too many. The whole destination option header concept
should be redone, for instance my proposal is:
 - kill the placement between hop-by-hop and routing headers
   (not used, just make implementations more complex)
 - keep the placement between routing and fragment headers for type 60
 - get a new type from IANA for placement after ESP (IPCOMP in fact)
This will give in the future simplest/cleanest implementations, the price
is incompatibility for mobile IPv6 implementations (which should be
incompatible in some cases with any proposal :-).

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: I have added the IPng WG mailing list because this is in its scope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------