This works, too. But now we have three participants in the discussion and three
opinions!
Let's just pick one! Does anybody have a coin?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Ole Troan
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:37 AM
> To: C.M.Heard
> Cc: IPv6
> Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-
> chain-04>
>
> > The reason I didn't suggest pointing at the Fragment Header is
> because
> > it would carry the same information that it would in a correctly
> > fragmented packet, namely M=1 and Fragment Offset=0 (the signature of
> > an initial fragment). The Payload Length field is what indicates
> that
> > the fragment is too short to contain all the extension headers and
> the
> > upper layer header; its value would have to be different in a
> > legitimate packet. Hence my suggestion to point there.
>
> or set the pointer field to 0? given that there really isn't an octet
> offset where an error has been detected.
>
> cheers,
> Ole
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
