João Valverde
changed
bug 10705
Comment # 11
on bug 10705
from João Valverde
(In reply to Pascal Quantin from comment #10)
> (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.
The problem here is that Mobile IPv6 should be in the "ipv6.nxt" table, not the
"ip.proto" table.
I agree with the bug report.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.