[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 ]