On 6/13/2013 12:02 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2013-06-12 14:58, Fernando Gont wrote:
Jeroen,
On 06/12/2013 11:44 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
with the exception of the HBH header, correct. I got tired of writing that each
time I was repeating myself.
the HBH is an issue to itself. expect those packets to be severely rate limited.
I am wondering why.... if your box cannot handle any headers, just
forward the packet, decreasing the hopcount and that is just.
Well, the router is supposed to process the HBH header.
According to the spec, yes, but does it make sense? See more below.
(note that must is not written in capitols in 2460 btw ;)
And, for some
options, if the option in question is not supported, the packet should
be dropped -- i.e., you cannot just "ignore the hbh header" (at east in
theory).
Why not? Is there any HBH header that is crucial for operation of IPv6?
Current non-experimental ones include:
- jumbograms
- RPL
- router alert
- CALIPSO (informational, but which includes a note about
hazards of HBH opts, but claims there was a conclusion
that this was still the correct approach)
RPL was just approved in 2012.
Even though few of these are 'crucial', why are router vendors still
creating new standards, and why does the IESG continue to approve them?
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
