Hi, Loganaden, On 01/20/2015 01:02 AM, Loganaden Velvindron wrote: > > Last time I was inquiring about depracated atomic fragments, people > were concerned that there wasn't enough practical data to decide > whether to go forward or not. What kind of practical data? FWIW, <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-00.txt> seems to be good enough when it comes to reasons for deprecating them. Besides, please check Section 5.2 of <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-01.txt> -- my "connection" to kernel.org was vulnerable to such attack. > Would a sysctl with it turned on by default be a good option, until we > are 100% sure ? <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-00.txt> was adopted by the 6man wg last November. While the I-D is not ready an RFC, and there might be minor modifications, it seems that there's agreement in not generating atomic fragments. If you do want to have a sysctl for this, please make it default to "off". Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html