netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Adding of destination options in IPv6

To: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Adding of destination options in IPv6
From: Stefan Schlott <stefan.schlott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:13:16 +0200
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200007111512.TAA16460@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 07:12:38PM +0400
References: <396AFFA9.A64FEDCB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200007111512.TAA16460@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2i
Hello,

> > and receiving; the same thing for forwarding would result in an "always
> > defragment" option, which would be somewhat "un-ip6-ish" :-)
> It is anti-ip4-ish with the same success. 8)
:-)

> My personal opinion is that current mobile IPv6 is one big piece
> of shit yet. 8)8) Piggibacking such options to data packets
> introduces no advantages, but lots of troubles.
It's even worse... I am working on IPsec ;-)
The solution you described seems to be the only possibility for the moment.
I am trying to calculate the size of the new headers, thus determining the
new ext_header_len. As a second step, I do my modifications in ip6_xmit/
ip6_build_xmit.
A general interface for this work would be ugly, but at least there would
be an interface ;-)
Any comments?

Stefan.

-- 
*--- please cut here... -------------------------------------- thanks! ---*
|-> E-Mail: stefan.schlott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    DH-PGP-Key: 0x2F36F4FE <-|
| HAL 9000 [nervous] : "Dave, put down those Windows disks !!!"           |
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>