On 14/06/2013 10:21 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
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
Best answer I can see is that the limit applies except for routers
supporting specific features. Corollary is that not all routers will do
so, and people defining such features should be aware of that.
Tom Taylor
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
