Re: Comments on multi6dt documents

On 10-nov-04, at 3:14, Pekka Savola wrote:

>> Also, under most circumstances either the packets you may want to 
>> piggyback on are already filling up the MTU, or there aren't any. So 
>> the complexity needed for piggybacking is probably not receive a 
>> decent return on investment.

> Unless you piggyback on the TCP connection establishment messages 
> which are known to be small enough to accommodate this.  That's the 
> only realistic case for piggybacking benefits AFAICS.

This is especially the place where filtering would be most harmful, 
because you don't know whether lack of a response means you should 
retry without the multihoming header, or you should try a different 
address.

But I do agree there are advantages as well. If you want to set up 
security stuff that is susceptible to sniffing attacks, the first 
packet is the place you want to do it because an attacker with just 
sniffing capability can't inject a false packet for a legitimate new 
session, because the properties of new sessions aren't known until the 
first packet is transmitted.