I noticed this Errata.
I'm OK with removing the requirement (MUST), but I think the
recommendation is not entirely bad to discard fragments that may follow -
albeit for a limited time and subject to finding a way to implement. MSL
As presently defined could also be regarded as too harsh, that's a
Hi, Gorry,
On 01/16/2012 05:15 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
I'm OK with removing the requirement (MUST), but I think the
recommendation is not entirely bad to discard fragments that may follow -
albeit for a limited time and subject to finding a way to implement.
It's not that it's bad.
On 01/13/2012 05:05 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
Notes - Discarding fragments including those not yet received
is not implementable. You'd have to keep state about the (source,
destination, protocol, id) 4-tuple for MSL (120 seconds). If you do
this you create two bugs: - A new attack
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5722,
Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments.
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5722eid=3089
--
Type: Technical
On 2012-01-13 15:05, RFC Errata System wrote:
- It breaks at fairly low speeds. See draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update.
I was confusing IPv6 with IPv4 (they do look similar!). You can ignore this
argument.
The other argument still stands.
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --
