[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 ]
Jen Linkova
furry13 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 17 15:41:01 CEST 2015
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Enno Rey <erey at ernw.de> wrote: >> I see *large* variable length headers, in combination with complex >> parsing rules, as the problem. > > (*large* variable headers) exactly, plus fragmentation Fragmentation is not specific to IPv6, is it? And, as the fragment header itself is just 8 bytes (AFAIR, too lazy to check ;)) - I'd not classify it as *large* variable header. > and "ambiguities" wrt fragmentable vs. unfragmentable part and how headers point to the next one once there's a cut between them due to fragmentation. the, what we consider, "problem space" is much larger, unfortunately. Has not RFC7112 addressed this particular problem? -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
- 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 ]