[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header

Subject: Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header
From: saku at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:02:57 +0300
In-reply-to: <CAL9jLaY5yaxsKXu+A3ua3wBfQXxaKQqy1jt0usbe+vGW-AKE4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <CAL9jLaY5yaxsKXu+A3ua3wBfQXxaKQqy1jt0usbe+vGW-AKE4g@mail.gmail.com>

On (2011-09-30 01:55 -0400), Christopher Morrow wrote:

> when will vendors learn that punting to the RE/RP/smarts for packets
> in the fastpath is ... not just 'unwise' but wholesale stupid? :(

What to do with IP options or IPv6 hop-by-hop options? What to do with IPv6
packets which contain options which push TCP/UDP past your lookup view?

Punting transit is not only not stupid but also necessary in hardware routers
which cannot handle every case in hardware (which is all routers).
There should just be adequate way to limit these and there should exist default
limitation.

-- 
  ++ytti

Follow-Ups:
- Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header
  - From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)

References:
- Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header
  - From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson)
- Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header
  - From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)

Prev by Date: Facebook insecure by design
Next by Date: Mails to Google being blocked for illegal attachments
Previous by thread: Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header
Next by thread: Cisco 7600 PFC3B(XL) and IPv6 packets with fragmentation header
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread