On 2013-06-13 14:02, Joe Touch wrote:
[..]
>> peeking at
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml
>> 'act' and noting there are a few protocols that have act != 00 that
>> might be affected by this.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'm not sure why the table includes HBH and DO in th
On 6/13/2013 1:54 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2013-06-13 13:17, Joe Touch wrote:
[..]
And, for some
options, if the option in question is not supported, the packet should
be dropped -- i.e., you cannot just "ignore the hbh header" (at east in
theory).
Why not? Is there any HBH header that is
On 2013-06-13 13:17, Joe Touch wrote:
[..]
>>> And, for some
>>> options, if the option in question is not supported, the packet should
>>> be dropped -- i.e., you cannot just "ignore the hbh header" (at east in
>>> theory).
>>
>> Why not? Is there any HBH header that is crucial for operation of IP
On 6/13/2013 12:02 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2013-06-12 14:58, Fernando Gont wrote:
Jeroen,
On 06/12/2013 11:44 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
with the exception of the HBH header, correct. I got tired of writing that each
time I was repeating myself.
the HBH is an issue to itself. expect those
On 2013-06-12 14:58, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Jeroen,
>
> On 06/12/2013 11:44 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> with the exception of the HBH header, correct. I got tired of writing that
>>> each time I was repeating myself.
>>> the HBH is an issue to itself. expect those packets to be severely rate
>>
Jeroen,
On 06/12/2013 11:44 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> with the exception of the HBH header, correct. I got tired of writing that
>> each time I was repeating myself.
>> the HBH is an issue to itself. expect those packets to be severely rate
>> limited.
>
> I am wondering why if your box c
