>>>>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:04:01 +0300 (EET DST),
>>>>> Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The RFC-2460 in chapter 4 explains that one should return a "Parameter
> Problem" ICMP for unrecognized extension header. This has an offset
> pointing to the "next header field".
> Question: What is the value of this offset, if the problematic "next
> header" was uncovered by ESP processing?
> Admittedly, ESP is a bad example, because one probably should not be
> sending the ICMP in this case. But, there might be other future funny
> extension headers that produce the next header value in strange
> ways?
Just as you said, I don't think it is meaningful to consider how an
icmp6 error packet against an encrypted packet should be. Is this
really your practical concern, or do you have another example of this
kind of problem?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
