Subject: Re: [pcp] #33: 3rd party mappings: create/destroy

From: Paul Selkirk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:45:50 +0000

>     Consensus that this is needed, need to decide whether in option or main
>     header.
> 
> => the alternative is between in option or in OpCode, it was never in
> main header. Can the ticket be fixed? (BTW this error occurs twice)

Francis makes a technical but salient point here - there's very little
actually in the main header.  Since the internal address had been in
both the PIN and PEER request and response headers, we tended to to
think of it as being "in the main header".

				paul

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:18:20 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Paul Selkirk
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:46 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] #33: 3rd party mappings: create/destroy
> 

The technical point is that

    Consensus that this is needed, need to decide whether in option
    or main header.

is incorrect, and that it would be more accurate to have written:

    Consensus that this is needed, need to decide whether in option
    or in the MAP and PEER OpCodes.
.......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sure, I made a mistake when I wrote that.

-d