Hi,
----- Original Message ----- > From: Rui Paulo <rpa...@apple.com> > To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" <ipv6@ietf.org> > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012 6:25 AM > Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-00.txt> > > On 4 Oct 2012, at 14:53, Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing: >> >> Title : Security Implications of the Use of IPv6 Extension > Headers with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery >> Author(s) : Fernando Gont >> Filename : draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-00.txt >> Pages : 12 >> Date : 2012-06-29 >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-00 >> >> as Proposed Standard. Substantive comments and statements of support for > advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial > suggestions can be sent to the authors. This last call will end on 18 > October > 2012. > > I support. It might be worth also mentioning Inverse ND (RFC3122), as it potentially could have created large ND packets that needed fragmentation with long lists of addresses in NAs. I've skimmed through it, and it seems to have specifically not done so (multiple neighbor advertisements are sent if the address list is too long for a single NA), although it uses the term "message" rather than "packet". I don't seem to be able to find an absolute statement that says "message" = packet, so a misinterpretation could be that a single "message" could be built and then fragmented into multiple packets for transmission. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
