Suresh,
I thought my arguments were clear enough from my original email. But let
me give it another shot.
Please see in line below between hs and /hs
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:47 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc:
Hi Hemant,
hsOf course, firewall vendors will be biased towards inspecting an EH
that is not the HBH. But that is not what RFC 2460 says. Here is text
from RFC 2460 that clearly says, no intermediate node will
inspect/process any EH besides the HBH.
[With one exception, extension
At Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:34:37 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On to more critical issues.
2. I and Wes don't agree at all with bullet 2 in section 4 (Future
work) of this draft that says:
[Extension headers must be processed in any order they appear]
[snip]
On 2008-03-14 12:43, Pekka Savola wrote:
FYI,
While we're considering RFC3484 changes, here's one additional
proposed modification to RFC3484 for Linux with ORCHID (RFC 4843) that
is worth serious consideration. (Discussion on the best
implementation choice(s) and glibc changes is still
Fred,
On 2008-03-19 01:33, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 18, 2008, at 5:10 AM, Gabi Nakibly wrote:
...
Similarly, there is no sense using a ULA source address unless the
destination is in the same ULA. If the destination is a global
address it might or might not be able to reply, but the
