> > "As Figure 5 shows, in many cases no connection was > established when > > the [IP] Record Route Option or the [IP] Timestamp Option > was included in > > the SYN packet. When IP Option X [a new IP Option; e.g., > QuickStart] > > is included in the SYN segment, the connection was not established > > to over 70% of the web servers tested. This does not > bode well for > > the deployment of new IP options in the Internet." > > It implies that mobile IPv6 depndeing on routing header > may not work. => This statement is true IFF people assume that Record Route Option == Routing header type 2 used for MIPv6. Of course that is not true because there are security implications for using routing header type 2 and an assumption that the end node will verfiy such use. Moreover, RH type 2 will not impact other nodes behind the FW if used in a malicious way. All this points to two things: 1. The two are not equivalent, and 2. We need to make sure that network admins know (1). Hesham =========================================================== This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. =========================================================== _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf