Is it possible to have proper symbolic naming ('describe') of codes
depending on type too? (as per RFC 4443)
I also notice there are some types that don't even have a corresponding
name (e.g. 139, 140).
ip6tables-translate does not translate codes either.
Has that been reported/considered?
Speaking of all that:
I have managed to "translate" the whole Appendix B of RFC 4890. However,
I am not quite sure how complete the appendix itself is, because:
- it does not address the recommendations given regarding hop limits
- I have found one bug (so far) in that same appendix
I wonder if it would be appropriate to contact the email addresses
given at the end of the RFC itself. What do you think?
Considering the importance of correct secure handling of ICMPv6, it
would be great to have an example on wiki.nftables.org showing a proper
implementation of RFC 4890.
