Comment # 10
on bug 10705
from Pascal Quantin
(In reply to boaz.brickner from comment #9)
> (In reply to Pascal Quantin from comment #8)
> > (In reply to boaz.brickner from comment #7)
> > > Also, why does it make sense that an IPv6 Authentication extension header
> > > would be inside IPv6 if it comes before Mobility extension header and below
> > > it if it comes after Mobility extension header?
> > Please see comment #3.
>
> In RFC 2460, IPv6 extension headers are described.
> They're part of the IPv6 definition.
> If the 3rd Authentication header in the packet belongs to the Mobility
> extension header, why isn't the Mobility extension header belongs to Hop by
> Hop extension header which belongs to 2nd Authentication header which
> belongs to the Routing header which belongs to the 1st Authentication header?
>
> Why is Mobility extension header special?
> From the RFCs I've seen so far, I don't see why treat it differently.
>
> Let me know what I'm missing.
Again, the 3rd AH is not being considered as an Ipv6 Next Header
(ipv6.routing_hdr.next filter), but as being the Payload protocol of the Mobile
IPv6 packet (mip6.proto filter). Is this correct? I do not know and I'm not an
expert in this area able to judge whether this is valid or not. I will let
other knowable people comment on this. I'm just trying to explain you why this
is displayed differently. This is NOT related to a specific treatment of the
mobility extension header.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.