[ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices

>>>> Tell me this. Would you be happier if the fragmentation rule said that the first fragment had to contain the entire IPv6 header, plus the transport layer header (for ACL support)? I think Fernando would support such a statement (I think I have "heard" him make such a statement).
>>> 
>>> It would certainly make *me* happier�$,1s&
>> 
>> done.
>> RFC7112.
> 
> As I wrote in another mail,
> 
>> It may be relevant to ask for RFC 7112 support next time we're doing
>> an equipment RFQ (in a few years).
> ...
>> But until RFC 7112 support is available, I believe we will
>> see a significant amount of breakage for IPv6 extension headers - and
>> header chains will be limited to significantly less than 1280 bytes.
> 
> And until such support is available, we have to deal with the current
> mess. Which may imply more filtering than some people would like.

I don’t think that follows.

cheers,
Ole
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20150619/242bd532/attachment.sig>