Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5
Tony Li <tli@cisco.com> Fri, 15 September 1995 16:54 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16725;
15 Sep 95 12:54 EDT
Received: from [132.151.1.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16721;
15 Sep 95 12:54 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15203;
15 Sep 95 12:54 EDT
Received: from greatdane.cisco.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-22)
id <AA04446>; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:25:04 -0700
Received: (tli@localhost) by greatdane.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id JAA18889;
Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:24:52 -0700
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:24:52 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199509151624.JAA18889@greatdane.cisco.com>
To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: fred@cisco.com, craig@aland.bbn.com, rreq@isi.edu
In-Reply-To: <9509151234.AA00951@mailserv-D.ftp.com> (kasten@ftp.com)
Subject: Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5
> I'll also point out that interpretation 1 is inconsistent with the > design of IPv6. router requirements -- 1812 -- explicitly does not apply to ip6 in any way, shape, or form. Of course. However, having IPv4 and IPv6 with completely inconsistent design criteria simply indicates SOME semblance of irrationality on behalf of the IETF. Either a) the header checksum is important, in which case interpretation 1 makes sense and IPv6 has a design flaw, xor b) the header checksum is unimportant in which case interpretation 2 is perfectly acceptable, and IPv6 is fine. I prefer my irrationality in Monty Python sketches, please. Tony
- RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Craig Partridge
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Fred Baker
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Fred Baker
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Frank Kastenholz
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Frank Kastenholz
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 John Shriver
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Noel Chiappa
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 William Chops Westfield
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 braden