* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Fri, 11 May 2007 09:22:43 -0700), Chris
Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The fix for emerging security threats was overkill and it broke
basic
* David Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We're not pushing this in, even the ipv6 working group is unsure
how this should be handled and one of the possibilities they might
choose matches how things currently are.
Alright, I'll drop this one from the -stable radar, thanks.
-chris
-
To
* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris, I think it is okay, but
please wait for Dave's approval.
Alright, will do.
thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The fix for emerging security threats was overkill and it broke
basic semantic of IPv6 routing header processing. We should assume
RT0 (or even RT2, depends on configuration) as unknown RH type so
that we
- silently ignore the routing
The fix for emerging security threats was overkill and it broke
basic semantic of IPv6 routing header processing. We should assume
RT0 (or even RT2, depends on configuration) as unknown RH type so
that we
- silently ignore the routing header if segleft == 0
- or, send ICMPv6 Parameter Problem
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Fri, 11 May 2007 09:22:43 -0700), Chris
Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
* YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The fix for emerging security threats was overkill and it broke
basic semantic of IPv6 routing header processing. We should assume
