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 ]
Fernando Gont
fgont at si6networks.com
Fri Jun 26 09:34:56 CEST 2015
On 06/17/2015 01:45 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> On Jun 16, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Personally I still think RFC 7045 is the most realistic on this >> point, but Fred would like things to get better ;-). > > And I haven't finished with Dennis Ferguson's comment. > > Bottom line, if one accepts the present status quo as the state > forever, then we should stop with RFC 7045, and (with Fernando) agree > to deprecate all extension headers. I'd like to not do that, and the > only way I see to not do that is to not accept the status quo. Not sure if that's simply a matter of an error in punctuation (or in my interpretation)... but for the record, I'm not arguing in favor of deprecating IPv6 EHs. Actually, I've worked to figured out what's the status quo, and working on stuff that may help to change that (e.g., RFC7112). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- 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 ]