Re: [IETF] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard

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

 



-- 
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them together, they make a pretty good raft.
                --Anon.


On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:34 AM, C. M. Heard wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>> Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
>> packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets.
> 
> Such routers were always broken.  An atomic packet has DF=0 and any 
> router fragmenting such a packet was and is non-compliant with 
> the relevant specifications (RFCs 791, 1122, 1812).

Sorry, but no….

Not following the RFC != broken. Not following the RFC == non-compliant.

There are numerous places where implementations do not follow the specs for various reasons, ranging from simply not bothering, through philosophical differences to customers paying for non-compliant feature X.

Sorry, I'm in a somewhat pedantic mood, and I saw a soapbox, so I climbed up on it…

W

> 
> //cmh
> 




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]