On Jan 3, 2011, at 13:43, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
> From the POV of a firewall, unless it really wants a packet to pass-through,
> it will block it.
That's an unwarranted assumption. Consider the "firewall" described in
I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security, which is intended to block only unsolic
On Jan 3, 2011, at 5:20 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> a) Specifying a uniform format for all future IPv6 extension headers to
> make them easier to parse/process.
Support
> b) Requesting a single IP protocol number codepoint for all future
> extension headers and multiplexing them using a Spec
All,
Scheduling and registration have opened for the 80th IETF meeting
in Prague. The chairs are now soliciting requests for agenda time
during the 6MAN WG slot. If you wish to present, please send the chairs:
- Topic
- Presenter
- Time requested
- draft name
As with pr
Le 5 janv. 2011 à 21:15, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 2011-01-06 02:15, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> ...
>> Prohibiting new IPv6 Extension Headers outright,
>> ...
> My reaction is that this is going too far,
+1
> ...
> So I am more inclined to a SHOULD NOT approach; I think I'm agreeing
> with a s
Le 5 janv. 2011 à 13:44, Joel M. Halpern a écrit :
> ...
> I consider (a), specifying the format at least to the level of requiring TLV
> encoding, to be a good idea.
+1
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Adm
