Ray,
On 15/06/2013 01:25, Ray Hunter wrote:
...
>
> 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)
Right, but that would be clearly pointless or some kind of attack,
so dropping it would be fine.
>
> The lineID option rfc6788.
" This document uses a mechanism that tunnels Neighbor Discovery (ND)
packets inside another IPv6 packet that uses a destination option
(Line-ID option) to convey line-identification information..."
In other words, only used in a local context where ND makes sense;
not an issue for WAN traffic.
>
> The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option rfc6553
Only used within a ROLL domain.
I don't think cases like this are troublesome. Extension headers
and options that need to be used over the WAN are the problem cases.
That's why this is a SHOULD NOT and a health warning, not a MUST NOT.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
