Hi Remi,
> The reason why no readdressing will be needed is tat RFC 6144 only concerns
> inter-router links. Their /127 IPv6 prefixes are distinct from those used
> with 64-bit IIDs.
So if I understand it correctly, if a PE-CE link already has a /127 prefix
assigned to it- and we wanted to us
On 02/09/2013 08:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 09/02/2013 09:11, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>> Not really. Firewalls look at many fields in the layer-4 headers -- and
>> such stuff can be past the first 8 bytes. e.g. OpenBSD PF looks at stuff
>> such as the initial TCP window for passive OS fin
BACKGROUND:
After this draft becomes a standard, and implementers have
time to update their code, there seems to be a good chance
that more fragmented packets will be able to traverse
various middleboxes (e.g. firewalls, NATs, whatever else).
Off list feedback indicates that for several middle
On 09/02/2013 09:11, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 02/09/2013 04:57 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Something that might make sense is to specify something along the lines
>>> of "if the size of the upper layer header is unknown (say, the upper
>>> layer protocol is implemented as a loadable module, i
Hi, Usman,
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify once more an important point.
2013-02-09 03:16, Usman Latif :
> Hi Remi,
>
> A few months ago, I raised some concerns around RFC 6164 which permitted use
> of /127 prefixes on inter-router p2p links.
> You mention use of u/g bits and reserv
On 02/09/2013 04:57 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Something that might make sense is to specify something along the lines
>> of "if the size of the upper layer header is unknown (say, the upper
>> layer protocol is implemented as a loadable module, in userland, or the
>> like).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
