When I call them (multihomed) hosts, I never would assume that the experiment
you propose would work. However, if I limit the paths to go through only one of
those boxes, treating it as the host it is, everything works fine.
That’s why it IS a host. And why I don’t need new rules to understand
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 3:17 PM Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 1:09 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> When they attempt to do host processing on packets that don't belong
> to them they're not hosts.
>
>
> They are every host for whose packets they process.
>
> And when they do
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:17 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> ,,,
>
>> But, in that case we really need the specification of the protocol to
>> have a meaning discussion about it.
>
> RFC 791 and 1122 provide everything that is needed.
>
> It’s not new, it’s just not an “intermediate” node. Never was.
>
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 1:09 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> When they attempt to do host processing on packets that don't belong
> to them they're not hosts.
They are every host for whose packets they process.
> And when they do this, they impose a new
> requirement that hosts do not
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:48 PM Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Hi, Tom,
>
>
>
>
> On 2019-01-17 08:58, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:24 AM Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> ...
> Hint - if a packet arrives on your interface with your IP address, you ARE a
> host.
>
> Joe,
>
> Conversley, if a
Hi, Tom,
On 2019-01-17 08:58, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:24 AM Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Hint - if a packet arrives on your interface with your IP address, you ARE a
>> host.
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Conversley, if a packet arrives on your interface that isn't destined
>> to
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:24 AM Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Hi, Tom,
>
> On 2019-01-17 07:27, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:06 AM Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 6:55 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> ...
>
> As I mentioned, in-network reassembly has not been
Hi, Tom,
On 2019-01-17 07:27, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:06 AM Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 6:55 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> ...
>
> As I mentioned, in-network reassembly has not been specified, only
> reassembly at end destinations has been.
> Hint
Hi Tom,
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 6:55 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:20 PM Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> On 1/14/2019 2:04 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> Hello. I have a couple of comments:
>>
>>> From the draft:
>> "Middle boxes SHOULD process IP fragments in a
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:20 PM Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> On 1/14/2019 2:04 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> Hello. I have a couple of comments:
>
> >From the draft:
> "Middle boxes SHOULD process IP fragments in a manner that is
> compliant with RFC 791 and RFC 8200. In many cases, middle boxes
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Wassim Haddad wrote:
This email starts an Int-Area WG Last Call on the latest version of "IP
Fragmentation Considered Fragile” draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05
Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send comments
On 16/1/19 16:26, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Ron,
>
> A stateless firewall that maintains state is no longer a stateless
> firewall. Introducing state requires memory and additional logic that
> are at odds with the goal of cheap low end devices..
>
> A stateless firewall could just drop the first
12 matches
Mail list logo
