Works for me. //cmh
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Ronald Bonica wrote: > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
