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 ]

sthaug at nethelp.no sthaug at nethelp.no
Wed Jun 17 15:27:50 CEST 2015

> So we all agree that 'variable length is OK as long as our hardware
> can look deep enough'? And what people are complaining about is exact
> number? Which we do not know yet for IPv6 EHs?

Agreed, variable length *by itself* is not the problem.

I see *large* variable length headers, in combination with complex
parsing rules, as the problem.

Steinar Haug, AS 2116

• 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 ]