Bob Hinden wrote:
[trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is does
the working group want to do anything to address the issues raised about
the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
2) Rec
[trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is
does the working group want to do anything to address the issues
raised about the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions include:
1) Deprecate all usage of RH0
2) Recommend that RH0 s
Yes, absolutely. Rob, I couldn't agree more.
>From: Rob Austein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/04/25 Wed AM 09:13:36 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ipv6@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues
>At Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:41:09 +0200 (CEST), Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>>
>>
At Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:41:09 +0200 (CEST), Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
> The current patch provided by OpenBSD/FreeBSD makes *BSD IPv6
> implemenation non-conformant to standard.
Sometimes violating the standard is the only reasonable thing for an
implementor to do. The (IPv4) stack I worked on back i
> > ... The problems of routing header type 0 well know by the community since
> > long time. This has been documented for more than 2-3 years know (raised 4
> > years ago). Are there any consensus, that type 0 routing header should be
> > deprecated? ...
>
> yes. nobody anywhere still thinks tha
> ... The problems of routing header type 0 well know by the community since
> long time. This has been documented for more than 2-3 years know (raised 4
> years ago). Are there any consensus, that type 0 routing header should be
> deprecated? ...
yes. nobody anywhere still thinks that this is ne
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:24:08 +0200, Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, one could argue that the standard isn't very well-written then - a
> > machine that is a *host* should NEVER forward packets, period.
bzzzt. with IPv6 spec NODE (host + router) has to handle routing
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:24:08 +0200, Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, one could argue that the standard isn't very well-written then - a
> machine that is a *host* should NEVER forward packets, period.
That's a BSD bug, not a standard bug.
The IPv6 specification says host must proc
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 09:41:09AM +0200, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> I think this is not a solution. The problems of routing header type 0 well
> know by the community since long time. This has been documented for more
> than 2-3 years know (raised 4 years ago). Are there any consensus, that
> type
Hi All,
I think this is not a solution. The problems of routing header type 0 well
know by the community since long time. This has been documented for more
than 2-3 years know (raised 4 years ago). Are there any consensus, that
type 0 routing header should be deprecated? Until that it is docum
10 matches
Mail list logo