Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.

On 11/07/2014 10:56 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2014, at 8:05 pm, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> Roberto appears to be arguing that just because the routing
>>> information might be in the last fragment, it isn't always; that's
>>> pessimistic. If the necessary information is in the first, it can be
>>> acted upon and then forwarded, reducing the buffers necessary to
>>> serve this more optimistic case.
>> I believe its optimistic to expect malicious coders will write the
>> routing information in the last fragment if they find you have coded to
>> assume it is in the first one(s). Even if the spec says only to send in
>> the first fragment.
> Not following you here...

You said it was pessimistic to expect attack. I think coding mistakes
and then attacks based on them are guaranteed to happen if the
fragmentation decision is retained.


Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 11:41:27 UTC