netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Destination Options (see at the end of message)

To: "Alberto Escudero" <aep@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Guilhem Tardy" <Guilhem.Tardy@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Destination Options (see at the end of message)
From: "mingliang jiang" <jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:37:35 -0800
Cc: "Masahito Yoshida" <s1042080@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, engp7643@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xhmeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ccfoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: QUALCOMM Eudora Web-Mail (http://www.eudoramail.com:80)
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dear All,

I am sorry for keeping quite, as I am still
waitng for a verdict from the Motorola Research
Center. :)

I think eventually it makes more sense for us
to implement the destination option in the linux
kernel. However as I am not following the 2.3.x
development, I am not in the postion to comment
on the complexity issues.

Regards,
Yours Humble Mingliang
---
Pls cc your message to jiangmingliang@xxxxxxxxxxx
thanks!
mingliang

On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:04:17   Guilhem Tardy wrote:
>Alberto Escudero wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Masahito!
>> 
>> I have the Internet DRAFT of 25 June 1999 and i am bit confussed...
>> may be you can help me with this...
>> In the Mobility support in IPv6 New Destination Options are defined
>> 
>> - Binding update Option Format
>> - Binding ACK OF
>> - Binding Reques OF
>> - Home Address OF
>> 
>Correct. (latest draft is Oct. 22 1999, see
>draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-09.txt, chapter 5)
>
>> Checking in the Internet Draft those options are encoded in the TLV format
>> with different Option Types.
>> 
>> 198=0xC6 for the binding update
>> 7 for the Binding ACK for example
>> 
>> Checking mh.c:
>> 
>> #define BIND_UPDATE_TYPE        195
>> #define BIND_ACK_TYPE           2
>> 
>> Why does values are different? Do they change in the drafts?
>I guess either those values were different at the time or the
>programmers used other values as they sent UDP packets for that matter.
>
>> - In the documentation i have (from the TIFF) files ... it is said that
>> all those bindings were not available in IPv6 kernel of linux and were
>> implemented using UDP... is it that right in the 1.0 NUS MIPv6?
>Destination Options are still not implemented in the IPv6 Linux kernel
>(2.2.13 or 2.3.31), hence there's no Binding Update Option available
>without a hack.
>
>I would like to have your opinion (all) on that:
>shall we keep on using UDP or is it an option to actually implement the
>Destination Options in the IPv6 Linux kernel (which has already greatly
>improved since 2.1.59)?
>As a complementary question, what is your view on the complexity of the
>DestOpt implementation?
>
>Guilhem.
>


Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account 
at http://www.eudoramail.com

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