On 06/13/2013 01:59 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> FWIW, I added INTAREA, because I don't consider potentially killing off
> IPv6 header extensions as merely maintenance (6man) or operational (v6ops).
We're trying to do exactly the opposite: try to define under which
constraints we can expect them to work
FWIW, I added INTAREA, because I don't consider potentially killing off
IPv6 header extensions as merely maintenance (6man) or operational (v6ops).
Joe
On 6/12/2013 3:45 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
BTW: Who added every basically single IETF list to this thread?
--
On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:07 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> However, anything that says "if the chain is >X, then drop" is broken,
>>> period.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't think anyone has proposed "if the chain is larger than X,
>> then drop".
>
> On the other hand - I, as an operator, may well decide to
On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:49:08 +0200
> From:Gert Doering
> Message-ID: <20130612174908.gt2...@space.net>
>
> | Loop back to about 50 messages earlier in this thread,
>
> I don't generally read this list (any more) - just
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:23 AM, cb.list6 wrote:
>
>> I believe Warren's data hints at the idea that the packets will vanish if
>> they don't fit a very specific profile.
Yup.
>
> Very likely…
>
> Anything beyond the ability of my devic
On Jun 11, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> 2008? RH0?
>> Dudes, have we not moved beyond this?
>
Nope, and we never will. It is really easy to send an RH0 packet -- if you were
an attacker, why wouldn't you at least try it?!
> Jun 10 15:03:54 psg kernel: IPFW2: IPV6 - Unknown Ex
