On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:22:48PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > Is this actually stated anywhere in RFC2460 ? I could not find
> > it. RFC7045 says:
>
> Yes, unclearly. Subject to rfc2460bis being returned to the 6man WG to make
> sure that the text is clearer.
(P)roblem (o)f (o)
Comment at the end..
On 07/04/2017 09:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> Unless RPL for the ACP or any future ACP mechanism do require
> reception and processing
> >> of IPv6-in-IPv6 packets, ACP routers SHOULD filter/drop IPv6-to-IPv6
> packet targeted
>
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Unless RPL for the ACP or any future ACP mechanism do require reception
and processing
>> of IPv6-in-IPv6 packets, ACP routers SHOULD filter/drop IPv6-to-IPv6
packet targeted
>> to their ACP address.
> I'm still not clear what the attack is. This rul
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Thanks Michael
> A) One aside question for curiosity. The doc is stating :
> ...IPv6 architecture as outlined in [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be
added or removed
> except by the sender or the receiver
> Is this actually stated anywhere in RFC2460
On 07/04/2017 07:05, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Thanks Michael
>
> A) One aside question for curiosity. The doc is stating :
>
> ...IPv6 architecture as outlined in [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added
> or removed
> except by the sender or the receiver
>
> Is this actually stated anywhere i
Thanks Michael
A) One aside question for curiosity. The doc is stating :
...IPv6 architecture as outlined in [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or
removed
except by the sender or the receiver
Is this actually stated anywhere in RFC2460 ? I could not find it. RFC7045 says:
There was no
