Permalink
Browse files

removed comments about the "conflict" between a sanity check and the

standard algorithm of processing a routing header.
  • Loading branch information...
1 parent c558def commit 3cd18fb5d89e559b0e1dd3e61b857ad0ce82a219 jinmei committed Nov 19, 2004
Showing with 1 addition and 10 deletions.
  1. +1 −10 kame/sys/netinet6/route6.c
View
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* $KAME: route6.c,v 1.54 2004/11/17 16:46:21 jinmei Exp $ */
+/* $KAME: route6.c,v 1.55 2004/11/19 04:50:44 jinmei Exp $ */
/*
* Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 WIDE Project.
@@ -111,15 +111,6 @@ route6_input(mp, offp, proto)
switch (rh->ip6r_type) {
case IPV6_RTHDR_TYPE_0:
rhlen = (rh->ip6r_len + 1) << 3;
- /*
- * if the routing header length is greater than the remaining
- * packet size, we don't skip the routing header even if
- * its segment-left field is 0, although it appears to be
- * violating RFC2460 4.4. This is to prevent buffer overrun.
- * (such buffer overrun case is not taken into consideration in
- * an algorithm in RFC2460 p.16, so we think the algorithm
- * should be updated)
- */
#ifndef PULLDOWN_TEST
/*
* note on option length:

0 comments on commit 3cd18fb

Please sign in to comment.