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/mat-wg@ripe.net/
[mat-wg] IPv6 extension headers support on RIPE Atlas
- Previous message (by thread): [mat-wg] Unsubscribe Remove
- Next message (by thread): [mat-wg] IPv6 extension headers support on RIPE Atlas
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Wed Nov 6 23:36:49 CET 2013
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Ole Troan wrote: > wouldn't it be sufficient to support the fragment header initially? I am mostly interested in extension- and fragment header, and combinations of these. The others you're right about, they probably won't work well anyhow. But extension nnd fragment headers have real legitimate use and we should try to assure that these work properly on the wider Internet. If someone at the edge decides they don't want these then that's fine, but if there are routers out there that by default treat these badly, I think it's good if everybody knows this. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [mat-wg] Unsubscribe Remove
- Next message (by thread): [mat-wg] IPv6 extension headers support on RIPE Atlas
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ mat-wg Archives ]