[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Flow label - the problem

To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Subject: Re: Flow label - the problem
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:39:12 +0200
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, shim6 <shim6@psg.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:17:02 +0200. <23DF8B4D-0278-439E-883C-38683B0A18EC@muada.com>

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   And I don't think a destination option is going to work as on  
   reception, the shim must be applied before all other headers are  
   processed. Think IPsec and fragmentation.
   
=> I don't understand your argument. Do you suggest fragmentation is
done before multihoming, i.e., there can be address changes intra packets?

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: mobility uses a destination option placed before fragmentation and/or
IPsec headers in order to be firewall friendly, not for any other reason.

References:
- Re: Flow label - the problem
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Firewall "uniformity" issue
Next by Date: Re: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself
Previous by thread: Re: Flow label - the problem
Next by thread: Re: Flow label - the problem
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread