Hi Markku,
Markku Savela wrote:
>> From: Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>>>> " o Extension headers must be processed in any order they appear"
>>> Why isn't the wording in RFC 2460 even clearer? Quoting:
>>>
>>> Therefore, extension headers must
>>> be processed strictly in the order they appear in the packet; a
>>> receiver must not, for example, scan through a packet looking for a
>>> particular kind of extension header and process that header prior to
>>> processing all preceding ones.
>> It is very clear. And that is exactly the problem I am talking about in
>> the draft. The real issue is that when you reach an unknown header of an
>> unknown format you have no way of proceeding any further with the
>> processing. The text Hemant was quoting is not from the meat of the
>> draft but from the future work section.
>
> And, if you hit unknown header, there is *NO WAY* to skip over it. You
> have no idea whether it is an extension header (following the standard
> format), or something totally different.
And hence this text in the future work section of the draft about
remaining issues to be resolved.
o Unknown extension headers cannot be differentiated from unknown
upper layer protocols
We had discussed this in the 6man meeting and there is no consensus on
the way forward. A common extension header format is ONLY ONE STEP in
the direction of the solution. It is certainly not the complete answer
and there is no claim in the draft that says otherwise.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
