> Let me play devil's advocate:
>
> No new types are required! What we're sending is still a Router
> Solicitation/Advertisement. The fact that it is routed gives us more
> information:
Excessive overloading of semantics might not be the best solution.
So let me play the reverse devil's advocate and say:
The cost of adding two new ICMP types is close to zero and it provides
more clarity since the semantics of a regular RA/RS and an RA/RS
to/from a mobile node will be different.
Also, this clarity helps talking about the mobile node which will
receive RAs from the routers on the visited link, and <different
type> messages from its home agent(s).
So what is wrong with adding new types?
> 1. The TTL of RS is < 255, which tells the HA it is from off-link.
Or a spoofed RS. When a router receives a spoofed RS it would presumbly
log an event and/or increase a counter.
With your overloading proposal it can't tell the difference
between a spoofed one and a mobile node using an RA.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
