> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
> --===1336328525==
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
> protocol="application/pgp-signature";
> boundary="enigCADC6924BAD7521CFFC2A32E"
>
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC
mharrima101 (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
> Please excuse if this post is not in the correct place - I wasn't sure
> where to put a question such as this.
>
> We are using an HP ProCurve switch in our network as a router ( it’s a
> layer 3 switch ). We are communicating with all devices on the fa
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Masataka> RFC1035 says it a bug. So, it should be illegal.
>
> It does say it's a bug but doesn't exactly say "illegal". And 1035
> only applies to DNS. There is no general statement about UDP
> (unfortunately).
Unfortunately for you, the statement in RFC1035 is general a
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:13:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> Protocols and implementations should generally respond using the
>> address to which the request packet was sent. That being said, there
>> are sometimes protocol reasons not to do this and sometimes
>> im
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Protocols and implementations should generally respond using the
> address to which the request packet was sent. That being said, there
> are sometimes protocol reasons not to do this and sometimes
> implementations don't necessarily handle things properly internally.
> But,
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:20:37 -0800 (PST), "mharrima101 (sent by
> Nabble.com)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
mharrima> Is the behavior of the HP switch legal under UPD? It seems
mharrima> to me as though this should not be allowed.
Protocols and implementations should generally respond us
talk to, our security policy does not allow us to accept the message.
Is the behavior of the HP switch legal under UPD? It seems to me as though this should not be allowed.
View this message in context: udp source address change
Sent from the IETF - IETF forum at Nabbl
