[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]

To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:12:44 +1000
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>, jis@MIT.EDU, ipsec@tis.com, ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM
In-Reply-To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o"'s message of "Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:54:57 -0400."
References: <199805010154.VAA20482@dcl.MIT.EDU>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

    Date:        Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:54:57 -0400
    From:        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
    Message-ID:  <199805010154.VAA20482@dcl.MIT.EDU>

  | I'm curious --- was it ever the case that the extension header
  | processing worked the way I described them in the first paragraph?

I don't think so, in fact the three fairly obvious cases where the
current header is TCP, UDP, or IPv6 itself (tunnelling) all fail to fit,
as does the fragment header if I remember correctly (it is of fixed size,
so has no header length field).   All of those have been around since the
beginning.

I have seen people assume that it is possible to skip unknown headers,
but that has neevr been correct IPv6 behaviour.

kre

Prev by Date: Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Next by Date: Re: isakmp attrubute ordering question
Prev by thread: RE: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, e tc.]
Next by thread: Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread