Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] ISSUE: Design team recommendation: New recommendation on piggybacking

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:55:54 +0100

I must have been asleep when somone proposed creating an IPPROTO_MIPV6
   (or whatever) type, and removing them from a Destination Options header.
   Is this really what the DT meant?

=> perhaps, the DT recommendation is so ambiguous...

   BTW, I *strongly* object to using a port - all of the mipv6
   implementations to date are in kernel space, not daemons.
   
=> I object to your objection:
 - your assumption that all MIPv6 implementations are in kernel space
   is wrong
 - it is easy to use a port in kernel space (examples: NFS, Mobile IPv4,
   etc).

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:06:37 -0500

>  - your assumption that all MIPv6 implementations are in kernel space

Changing from essentially one type of DO to another does not impact
the existing implementations that much, changing to a port would be
a big mess since we must move from the IP layer to the socket layer.
And you could still implement it as a daemon if Mipv6 is given a new
"protocol" type since it's very easy to deliver all those packets
to user-space.

>  - it is easy to use a port in kernel space (examples: NFS, Mobile IPv4,

I've only seen Mobile IPv4 implementations in user-space, but I'll admit
I haven't seen them all.  NFS was moved into the kernel for performance
reasons, and I wouldn't say it's easy to implement, there are a lot of
tricks going on behind the scenes.

-Brian