[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCHSET] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.43

To: ajtuomin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.43
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:27:58 +0900 (JST)
Cc: takamiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jagana@xxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20021031104146.GA18786@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: USAGI Project
References: <20021017162624.GC16370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021031.174442.846937513.takamiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021031104146.GA18786@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <20021031104146.GA18786@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 31 Oct 2002 
12:41:46 +0200), Antti Tuominen <ajtuomin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:

> > (4) Processing Mobility Header
> >     How about using ip6_txoptions and hdrproc_lst?
> >     Because Mobility header is an extension header, we think it is
> >     reasonable way to handle it in ipv6_parse_exthdrs().
> No.  We did this back in Draft 15, when all the mobility stuff was
> destination options.  Mobility Header is not an extension header, but
> rather a final protocol.  Only Home Address Option is an extension
> header and is handled in ipv6/exthdrs.c.  What is the problem with
> this?

This is not so strong request here at this moment.


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