> Tom Taylor <mailto:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com> > 14 June 2013 15:58 > On 14/06/2013 9:25 AM, Ray Hunter wrote: >> > ... > >> I've been trawling through various standards trying to identify sane >> extension header combinations myself. >> >> I've come across a couple of problematic standardised options already >> defined that don't appear to have individual length limits below the >> overall generic limit of 256 octets per option (derived from the "Opt >> Data Len" field being 1 octet), so limiting the overall header length to >> 256 octets could have direct impact on those. >> >> PadN (of course) >> >> The lineID option rfc6788. >> >> The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option >> rfc6553 >> >> regards, >> RayH > ... > > Neither of these should appear outside of limited domains. The Line > Identification option passes from the Access Node in a broadband > deployment to the edge router (BNG) and goes no further. The RPL > option is used only inside of RPL networks. > > Tom Taylor > FWIW I agree.
But what would a standard limit of 256 octets on the header chain mean if one single option can be as long as the limit for the entire header chain? Is the limit only applicable across AS boundaries? On high speed devices only? YMMV? regards, RayH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
