On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:34:10PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > Navindra Yadav pointed out in a discussion over on an ONF issue tracker > > that first/later fragment isn't as useful with IPv6: the TCP/UDP port > > numbers aren't necessarily in the first fragment, because other > > intermediate extension headers can follow the fragment header. > > > > Any idea what we should do about this? > > This is always true, even for IPv4. You could have a fragment that is > split very quickly after the IP header or simply a truncated packet.
I don't understand yet. An IP fragment is always at least 8 bytes long. The TCP and UDP port numbers are in the first 8 bytes of the TCP and UDP headers, respectively. So won't the first IP fragment of a complete TCP or UDP packet always contain the TCP and UDP port numbers? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
