IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 02 November 2017 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8E8139982 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xUB7RmYJ_nWU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F2D413968C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008992058F; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F40180696; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:57:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Updating to RFC6434 to deal with 8200-style header insertion by IPIP
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VETxNVQ+YD5j6ZiWjycQ=ojAuWwB23offNdVKm+S9c_7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACL_3VETxNVQ+YD5j6ZiWjycQ=ojAuWwB23offNdVKm+S9c_7A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:57:45 -0400
Message-ID: <23308.1509623865@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/OHiC0BiSAJqtIcNN-qaD5q4FiyE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 11:57:48 -0000

C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
    > On Wed, 01 Nov 2017, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> Yet we skip other extension headers in order to find the ULP.

    > Not so. An end node that encounters an unrecognized extension header is

Both AH and IPIP are well known and recognized extension headers.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email