* 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 unsub
* 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
>
* 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 http
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 shoul
* 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 rou
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
