Comment # 17
on bug 10673
from João Valverde
(In reply to João Valverde from comment #16)
> > This is a different issue, namely whether an invalid header that will
> > generate an ICMPv6 error
>
> Upon further reflection, scratch that. Not invalid at all. I was
> interpreting the "MUST equal 1" too literally. My bad. This needs fixing,
> thanks for reporting it!
Or maybe not.
"If another routing header is present along with a type 2 routing header, the
type 2 routing header should follow the other routing header."
Probably a good idea to sleep on it.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
