Subject: [mobile-ip] non-skippable extensions in MIPv4

From: Bjorn Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:05:09 +0200

RFC3220 mandates that messages containing non-skippable extensions MUST
be silently discarded. I would like to propose that if a registration
request contains a non-skippable extension, then mobility agents should
reply with an error code that gives an indication of the problem. The
error reply should also be able to contain an extension that would
give a more specific inidication of the problem, e.g. the position
of the rejected extension and/or the extension type number.

Currently, when registrations are silently discared, the MN has
no chance of knowing whether the message was discarded due to a
non-skippable extension or if it was lost in the Internet (and thus
should be resent).

Is there any reason for not replying with an error code?
Opinions?

  Bjorn

-- 
Bjorn Andersson <[email-masked]>                       +358 50 341 2556
Lifix Systems Oy <http://www.lifix.fi/>                 PGP id 5AFC144B
Yliopistonkatu 5, 3rd floor; FIN-00100 Helsinki