--- On Thu, 7/19/12, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>On 07/19/2012 07:33 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>> I think the requirement that a packet that violates the
>> proposed oversized-heacer-chain rule be dropped "silently"
>> is too strong and lacks operational flexibility.
>
>FWIW, when I said "sil
Hi, Ran,
On 07/19/2012 09:04 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>> Should we make this latter bit (about this being configurable)
>> a MAY, or would you prefer to have non-RFC2119 language?
>
> I believe this configurability is really desirable.
> It isn't a big burden for an implementer, as it is
> simply a
On 19 Jul 2012, at 15:20 , Fernando Gont wrote:
>> 1) I'd prefer this draft say that such illegal packets MUST
>> be dropped, but then also say that the device dropping the
>> packet MAY send an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem control message
>> back to the (alleged) sending node. A brief sent
Hi, Ran,
As always, thanks so much for your feedback and elaborated comments.
Please find my response in-line...
On 07/19/2012 07:33 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> I think the requirement that a packet that violates the
> proposed oversized-heacer-chain rule be dropped "silently"
> is too strong and l
OPINION/BELIEF:
I concur with Fred Baker's analysis of "SHOULD" versus "MUST".
I think the requirement that a packet that violates the
proposed oversized-heacer-chain rule be dropped "silently"
is too strong and lacks operational flexibility.
A device ought to be allowed, but not required, to
Hi, Eric,
On 07/19/2012 07:21 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Two comments: 1) for the transition period (when we could perhaps see
> those packets -- even if I have yet to see one!), 'silently' is
> perhaps too strong, I would suggest at the bare minimum a dropped
> packet counter (else operat
e it helps
-éric
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Fernando Gont
> Sent: mercredi 18 juillet 2012 22:37
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: oversized-header-chains: Receipt of illegal first-fragments
>
> Folks
Hi, Fred,
Thanks so much for your prompt response. Please find my comments in-line...
On 07/18/2012 10:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> "A host that receives a first-fragment that fails to include the
>> entire IPv6 header chain MUST silently drop the aforementioned
>> fragment".
>>
>> Clearly
On Jul 18, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Folks,
>
> There's one issue that came up during my recent exchange with Suresh on
> which I'd like others (including Suresh) to weigh in:
>
> Since first-fragments that fail to include the entire header chain will
> be illegal, I think it wou
Hi Fernando,
I think this is an essential message that needs to be added as part of the
draft.
Thanks,
Vishwas
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Folks,
>
> There's one issue that came up during my recent exchange with Suresh on
> which I'd like others (including Suresh) to
Folks,
There's one issue that came up during my recent exchange with Suresh on
which I'd like others (including Suresh) to weigh in:
Since first-fragments that fail to include the entire header chain will
be illegal, I think it would be appropriate to include an additional
requirement in draft-ie
11 matches
Mail list logo
