On 06/06/2013 06:14 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: > So in other words, any packet parsing engine should be prepared to > examine an entire single frame up to the MTU of the local egress > interface, but should not be expected to maintain any state across > multiple fragments.
FWIW, some earlier version of this document tried to require that the entire IPv6 header chain be present within the first 1280 bytes -- but some folks thought that was too constricting. > We might also benefit operationally from setting an additional limit on > the length of the hop hop option header, which is theoretically meant to > be processed by routers along the path. However, my guess is that is > well beyond the author's original intentions for > draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02, which was more focussed on > firewalls. I (personally) think it would be valuable to limit the number of instance of each extension header -- but that wouldn't probably fly here... Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
