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/[email protected]/
[ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Joe Touch
touch at isi.edu
Tue Jun 16 22:11:54 CEST 2015
On 6/16/2015 12:02 PM, Jen Linkova wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Enno Rey <erey at ernw.de> wrote: >> the problem here is the definition of "normal IP packet" as of RFC2460. > > The problem here is what one might mean by "normal" (from Oxford dictionary): > 1) conforming to a standard; > 2) usual, typical, or expected; That's the trouble with extensions. You can't expect them until they're developed AND deployed, so initially they're never "expected" in terms of actual traffic. Except that we SHOULD expect *everything* that's in a spec. Joe
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]