Suresh,
This is just an example of the Internet robustness guideline:
"be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive".
If you recognize statement (a) as applying to senders, and (b) as
applying to receivers, you will see that they are not contradictory.
Also, note the "should" (rather than "must") in statement (a).
Steve
At 2:20 PM -0700 9/17/01, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>Hi all,
> I might be totally wrong in this but I see that there are two
>contradicting statements in RFC1883 for IPv6. Can somebody please explain
>
>Page 7
>
>statement a:
> Each extension header should occur at most once, except for the
> Destination Options header which should occur at most twice (once
> before a Routing header and once before the upper-layer header).
>
>statement b:
> IPv6 nodes must accept and attempt to process extension headers in
> any order and occurring any number of times in the same packet,
> except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header which is restricted to
> appear immediately after an IPv6 header only.
>
>I am sorry if this has already been raised as a question and answered.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Suresh
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
