Le 2013-02-11 à 11:55, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com a écrit :
(Correcting the Subject header )
Oops, 6144 instead of 6164 was a typo!
That could be reported as an erratum against RFC 6164.
IN ADDITION to citing RFC 6164 as updating RFC 4291, this makes sense to me.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Jitendra Singh
jitendra.bhador...@one97.net wrote:
Hi,
** **
I am trying to write an IPv6 client in C++ using ACE framework. Even after
compiling with ACE_HAS_IPV6 preprocessor flag, I am not able to connect to
an IPv6 server.
Can somebody please
All,
This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing:
Title : Security and Interoperability Implications of
Oversized IPv6 Header Chains
Author(s): F Gont, V. Manral
Filename: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-02
Pages
Fernando,
**How many bytes of the transport header+payload are included in this
definition?**
For ESP, is it 8 bytes (SPI + Sequence Number)?
I think that would be OK. Certainly it MUST NOT be
more than those 8 bytes, because beyond there lies
encrypted bits (in the general case).
On 11 Feb 2013, at 16:42 , Ole Troan wrote:
what about ESP with NULL encryption?
In the general case, there is no way to reliably (i.e. 100.00%)
know whether a transit ESP packet is using encryption or not.
There are published heuristics that seek to identify ESP
packets that might not be
Hi Remi,
On 11/02/2013, at 9:13 PM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
...
So if I understand it correctly, if a PE-CE link already has a /127 prefix
assigned to it- and we wanted to use the CE as a 4rd CE, we'll have to
assign an additional IPv6 prefix to the CE with 64-bit IIDs?
Hi, Ole,
On 02/11/2013 06:42 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
I think that would be OK. Certainly it MUST NOT be more than
those 8 bytes, because beyond there lies encrypted bits (in the
general case).
Quickly skimming through RFC4303, it looks like the first 8 bytes
of the ESP header are referred to
I believe the draft needs one more spin in order to be precise
about the number of bytes included in the upper layer header.
Consider that in addition to the common transport headers,
and ICMPv6, any protocol number defined in the IANA registry
that is not an extension header might in theory
