This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Fri Oct 19 15:30:38 CEST 2007
On 19-okt-2007, at 11:04, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Since when are IPv6 routers required to do IPsec processing?
> December 1995 - please see rfc1883 and rfc2640, section 4:
>
>> A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
>> following extension headers:
Two can play the RFC quoting game (2460):
With one exception, extension headers are not examined or processed
by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches
the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast)
identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]