length value of extensions related to dsmipv4

Hi,

I'm implementing DSMIPv4 based on current draft.
But I'm confused because length value of IPv6 Prefix
Extension, IPv6
Code Extension and IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension are
including Type and
Length fields.
Those extensions are Short Extension Format defined in
RFC3344.
So, I think it should be value excluding Type and Length
fields.
Is it right?

Best Regards,
Jun


-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
    Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

Hi Jun,

I am happy to see you are implementing the draft and I would
encourage
you to share with us any problems you might come up with.

With respect to your question, yes, the extensions are
following the
short format which is defined in RFC3344, Section 1.11, from
which I
quote:

"1.11.  Short Extension Format

   This format is compatible with the skippable extensions
defined in
   section 1.9.  It is not applicable for extensions which
require more
   than 256 bytes of data; for such extensions, use the
format described
   in section 1.10.

     0                   1                   2              
    3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 0 1
   
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
    |     Type      |   Length      |    Sub-Type   |   
Data ....
   
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+ "


This is the format I used in the DSMIPv4 draft. For example
the IPv6
Prefix Extension is defined as:

       0                   1                   2            
      3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 0 1
     
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
      |      Type     |   Length      |   Sub-Type    |
Prefix Length |
     
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
      |                                                     
         |
      +                                                     
         +
      |                                                     
         |
      +                   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix        
         +
      |                                                     
         |
      +                                                     
         +
      |                                                     
         |
     
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+

The Type, Length and Sub-Type values are that of the short
extension
format and the Data field includes Prefix Length and Mobile
IPv6 Network
Prefix fields.

Is this OK?

George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jun AWANO [mailto:j-awanoaz.jp.nec.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:16 PM
> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
> Subject: [Mip4] length value of extensions related to
dsmipv4
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm implementing DSMIPv4 based on current draft.
> But I'm confused because length value of IPv6 Prefix
Extension, IPv6
> Code Extension and IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension are
including Type
and
> Length fields.
> Those extensions are Short Extension Format defined in
RFC3344.
> So, I think it should be value excluding Type and
Length fields.
> Is it right?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Jun
> 
> 
> --
> Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
>     Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
>      Charter page: h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
> Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
    Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

Hi,

I think Jun's question was prompted by the specification of
the Length field as "20".  Jun is saying it should
be "18", because
it shouldn't include the Type and Length fields.

-Pete

Tsirtsis, George wrote:
> Hi Jun,
> 
> I am happy to see you are implementing the draft and I
would
> encourage you to share with us any problems you might
come up with. 
> 
> With respect to your question, yes, the extensions are
following the
> short format which is defined in RFC3344, Section 1.11,
from which I 
> quote:
> 
> "1.11.  Short Extension Format
> 
>    This format is compatible with the skippable
extensions defined in
>    section 1.9.  It is not applicable for extensions
which require
>    more than 256 bytes of data; for such extensions,
use the format
>    described in section 1.10.
> 
>      0                   1                   2         
         3
>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
>     |     Type      |   Length      |    Sub-Type   |  
 Data ....
>    
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
> " 
> 
> 
> This is the format I used in the DSMIPv4 draft. For
example the IPv6
> Prefix Extension is defined as: 
> 
>        0                   1                   2       
           3
>        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+ |  
> Type     |   Length      |   Sub-Type    | Prefix
Length |
>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+ |  
> | +                                                    
          + |
> | +                   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix       
          + |
> | +                                                    
          + |
> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+  
> 
> The Type, Length and Sub-Type values are that of the
short extension
> format and the Data field includes Prefix Length and
Mobile IPv6
> Network Prefix fields.  
> 
> Is this OK?
> 
> George
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jun AWANO [mailto:j-awanoaz.jp.nec.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:16 PM
>> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
>> Subject: [Mip4] length value of extensions related
to dsmipv4
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm implementing DSMIPv4 based on current draft.
>> But I'm confused because length value of IPv6
Prefix Extension, IPv6
>> Code Extension and IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension
are including Type
>> and Length fields. Those extensions are Short
Extension Format
>> defined in RFC3344. 
>> So, I think it should be value excluding Type and
Length fields.
>> Is it right?
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Jun
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
>>     Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
>>      Charter page:
>> h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental
>> site: http://www.mip4.org/ 


--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
    Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

Ah yes, I misunderstood the question. Jun is very correct.
The Length
values of the three extensions should be as follows:

IPv6 Prefix Extension: 		 Length = 18
IPv6 Code Extension: 		 Length = 20
IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension: Length = 2

I will fix this in the next version.

Thanks
George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McCann Peter-A001034 [mailto:pete.mccannmotorola.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:25 PM
> To: Tsirtsis, George; Jun AWANO; Mobile IPv4 Mailing
List
> Subject: RE: [Mip4] length value of extensions related
to dsmipv4
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think Jun's question was prompted by the
specification of
> the Length field as "20".  Jun is saying it
should be "18", because
> it shouldn't include the Type and Length fields.
> 
> -Pete
> 
> Tsirtsis, George wrote:
> > Hi Jun,
> >
> > I am happy to see you are implementing the draft
and I would
> > encourage you to share with us any problems you
might come up with.
> >
> > With respect to your question, yes, the extensions
are following the
> > short format which is defined in RFC3344, Section
1.11, from which I
> > quote:
> >
> > "1.11.  Short Extension Format
> >
> >    This format is compatible with the skippable
extensions defined
in
> >    section 1.9.  It is not applicable for
extensions which require
> >    more than 256 bytes of data; for such
extensions, use the format
> >    described in section 1.10.
> >
> >      0                   1                   2    
              3
> >      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
> >     |     Type      |   Length      |    Sub-Type 
 |    Data ....
> >
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
> > "
> >
> >
> > This is the format I used in the DSMIPv4 draft.
For example the IPv6
> > Prefix Extension is defined as:
> >
> >        0                   1                   2  
                3
> >        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+ |
> > Type     |   Length      |   Sub-Type    | Prefix
Length |
> >
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+ |
> > | +                                               
               +
|
> > | +                   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix  
               +
|
> > | +                                               
               +
|
> > |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
> >
> > The Type, Length and Sub-Type values are that of
the short extension
> > format and the Data field includes Prefix Length
and Mobile IPv6
> > Network Prefix fields.
> >
> > Is this OK?
> >
> > George
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jun AWANO [mailto:j-awanoaz.jp.nec.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:16 PM
> >> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
> >> Subject: [Mip4] length value of extensions
related to dsmipv4
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm implementing DSMIPv4 based on current
draft.
> >> But I'm confused because length value of IPv6
Prefix Extension,
IPv6
> >> Code Extension and IPv6 Tunneling Mode
Extension are including Type
> >> and Length fields. Those extensions are Short
Extension Format
> >> defined in RFC3344.
> >> So, I think it should be value excluding Type
and Length fields.
> >> Is it right?
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Jun
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
> >>     Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
> >>      Charter page:
> >> h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental
> >> site: http://www.mip4.org/


--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
    Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

Hi, George and Pete

Thank you for your early reply.
My intention was exactly what Pete said.

George> I will fix this in the next version.
Thanks, George.

-Jun

Tsirtsis, George wrote:
> Ah yes, I misunderstood the question. Jun is very
correct. The Length
> values of the three extensions should be as follows:
> 
> IPv6 Prefix Extension: 		 Length = 18
> IPv6 Code Extension: 		 Length = 20
> IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension: Length = 2
> 
> I will fix this in the next version.
> 
> Thanks
> George
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McCann Peter-A001034 [mailto:pete.mccannmotorola.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:25 PM
>> To: Tsirtsis, George; Jun AWANO; Mobile IPv4
Mailing List
>> Subject: RE: [Mip4] length value of extensions
related to dsmipv4
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think Jun's question was prompted by the
specification of
>> the Length field as "20".  Jun is saying
it should be "18", because
>> it shouldn't include the Type and Length fields.
>>
>> -Pete
>>
>> Tsirtsis, George wrote:
>>> Hi Jun,
>>>
>>> I am happy to see you are implementing the
draft and I would
>>> encourage you to share with us any problems you
might come up with.
>>>
>>> With respect to your question, yes, the
extensions are following the
>>> short format which is defined in RFC3344,
Section 1.11, from which I
>>> quote:
>>>
>>> "1.11.  Short Extension Format
>>>
>>>    This format is compatible with the skippable
extensions defined
> in
>>>    section 1.9.  It is not applicable for
extensions which require
>>>    more than 256 bytes of data; for such
extensions, use the format
>>>    described in section 1.10.
>>>
>>>      0                   1                   2 
                 3
>>>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>>
>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
>>>     |     Type      |   Length      |   
Sub-Type   |    Data ....
>>>
>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
>>> "
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the format I used in the DSMIPv4 draft.
For example the IPv6
>>> Prefix Extension is defined as:
>>>
>>>        0                   1                  
2                   3
>>>        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
> 1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+ |
>>> Type     |   Length      |   Sub-Type    |
Prefix Length |
>>>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+ |
>>> | +                                            
                  +
> |
>>> | +                   Mobile IPv6 Network
Prefix                  +
> |
>>> | +                                            
                  +
> |
>>> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+
>>>
>>> The Type, Length and Sub-Type values are that
of the short extension
>>> format and the Data field includes Prefix
Length and Mobile IPv6
>>> Network Prefix fields.
>>>
>>> Is this OK?
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jun AWANO [mailto:j-awanoaz.jp.nec.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:16 PM
>>>> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
>>>> Subject: [Mip4] length value of extensions
related to dsmipv4
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm implementing DSMIPv4 based on current
draft.
>>>> But I'm confused because length value of
IPv6 Prefix Extension,
> IPv6
>>>> Code Extension and IPv6 Tunneling Mode
Extension are including Type
>>>> and Length fields. Those extensions are
Short Extension Format
>>>> defined in RFC3344.
>>>> So, I think it should be value excluding
Type and Length fields.
>>>> Is it right?
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Jun
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
>>>>     Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
>>>>      Charter page:
>>>> h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental
>>>> site: http://www.mip4.org/
> 


-- 
-----------------------------------------------
Jun AWANO <j-awanoaz.jp.nec.com>
NEC Ubiquitous Platform Development Division
Tel:+81 3 5476 9798, FAX:+81 3 5476 1005



-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4ietf.org
    Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/