I am happy to set the pointer field to 0 if Mike agrees.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:56 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: C.M.Heard; IPv6
> Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-
> chain-04>
>
> > 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?
>
> who calls "edge"? ;-)
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
> >
> >> -----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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
