Re: [Seamoby] Candidate 2 for Draft 8 for CARD

[Rajeev Koodli <rajeev at iprg.nokia.com>]

James Kempf wrote:

>
> Since the CARD ICMP options and the FMIP options are being assigned out of
> the same ICMP option numbering space, there should be no need to request any
> particular assignment from IANA. They will co-ordinate such that there is no
> clash between the two. Off the top of my head, I can't think why any
> particular numbers for CARD should be preferred to any others, but if
> there's something I'm missing, we can send a special request to IANA for
> particular numbers.
>

I was not aware that IANA will take care of this. FMIPv6 defines a registry for

the options. I just want to make sure that piggybacking, fwiw, is still
possible.

-Rajeev


>
> > Also, why not send a RtSolPr with the CARD Request Option and
> > Sub-options and see if the router replies, instead of using a probing
> > mechanism to discover "piggybacking". I know this is too late, but
> > a thought nevertheless.
> >
>
> I'd prefer not to change the draft at this point. As of this weekend, we
> have agreement from Alex Zinn to remove his Discuss and Allison is ready to
> send it to the draft to the RFC Editor for publication as soon as we submit
> version 8.
>
> Let's move further discussion of improvements to MOBOPTS.
>
>             jak


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby