Not that I am aware of..... > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:20 AM > To: Ronald Bonica > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08.txt> > (Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains) to Proposed Standard > > Hi Ron, > At 16:55 13-10-2013, Ronald Bonica wrote: > >Are you suggesting that we don't address the problem because the code > >is too complex to touch? > > It's a known problem since at least seven years. Given that the > problem is labelled as a security issue there would have to be some > changes to the specification at some point. There were design > decisions to implement the specification and the code has been > deployed. The proposed outbound change is one sentence. The code > change to implement that one sentence requires reviewing some > implementation decisions (re. encapsulation, etc.). Please note that I > am not arguing for or against a change in the RFC 2119 key words. The > write-up only mentions that the draft has been implemented on stateless > firewalls. I am curious about whether there are any implementations > for a host. > > Regards, > -sm > >