Hello Acee,
The first, best answer I can give is that I don't know why
that padding extension is listed there.
Since it would be for UDP payloads, I don't immediately
see why it should be needed. I don't remember hearing
anyone express a need for it. There is not any text in the
body of the specification describing such an extension.
I don't remember asking IANA to put it in there, but I did
not comb through all my emails with IANA to be sure.
I seem to have some very hazy memory of a discussion
about whether such a padding extension would be needed,
but I can't resolve when or where or in what context.
I think the simplest thing would be to just remove it,
but if there are implementations out there relying on the
existing of the padding extension, we should respect that.
If more detail is needed, I could make a diff between each
previous version of the Internet Drafts of the specification,
but I'd prefer to avoid having to do that.
Regards,
Charlie P.
ext Acee Lindem wrote:
Hi Charlie,
Why is the type 0 for one-byte pad listed in section 6.3 under the
"Extensions for Mobile IP Registrations"?
6.3. Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages
The Mobile IP messages, specified within this document, and
listed in
Section 1.8 and Section 6.1, may have extensions. Mobile IP
message
extensions all share the same number space, even if they are to be
applied to different Mobile IP messages. The number space for
Mobile
IP message extensions is specified within this document.
Approval of
new extension numbers is subject to Expert Review, and a
specification is required [14].
Type Name
Reference
---- --------------------------------------------
---------
0 One-byte Padding
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
32 Mobile-Home Authentication 3.5.2
33 Mobile-Foreign Authentication 3.5.3
34 Foreign-Home Authentication 3.5.4
Clearly, that is not the intent nor what IANA has reserved:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers
Thanks,
Acee
