Not that I am aware of.....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:20 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt>
> (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard
>
> Hi Ron,
> At 16:55 13-10-2013, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> >Are you suggesting that we don't address the problem because the code
> >is too complex to touch?
>
> It's a known problem since at least seven years. Given that the
> problem is labelled as a security issue there would have to be some
> changes to the specification at some point. There were design
> decisions to implement the specification and the code has been
> deployed. The proposed outbound change is one sentence. The code
> change to implement that one sentence requires reviewing some
> implementation decisions (re. encapsulation, etc.). Please note that I
> am not arguing for or against a change in the RFC 2119 key words. The
> write-up only mentions that the draft has been implemented on stateless
> firewalls. I am curious about whether there are any implementations
> for a host.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
>
