> This works, too. But now we have three participants in the discussion and > three opinions! > > Let's just pick one! Does anybody have a coin?
who calls "edge"? ;-) cheers, Ole > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Ole Troan >> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:37 AM >> To: C.M.Heard >> Cc: IPv6 >> Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header- >> chain-04> >> >>> The reason I didn't suggest pointing at the Fragment Header is >> because >>> it would carry the same information that it would in a correctly >>> fragmented packet, namely M=1 and Fragment Offset=0 (the signature of >>> an initial fragment). The Payload Length field is what indicates >> that >>> the fragment is too short to contain all the extension headers and >> the >>> upper layer header; its value would have to be different in a >>> legitimate packet. Hence my suggestion to point there. >> >> or set the pointer field to 0? given that there really isn't an octet >> offset where an error has been detected. >> >> cheers, >> Ole >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
