RE: RFC 2460 issue

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@xxxxxx>]

I believe same as Savela here.  Pretty obvious to me.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Markku Savela
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:21 PM
> To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.ca
> Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com; jari.arkko@kolumbus.fi; 
> Alain.Durand@Sun.COM; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC 2460 issue
> 
> 
> 
> > Off the top of my head I know that RFC3493 needs to be 
> updated since 
> > the IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS socket option now accepts 0 as a valid hop 
> > count. I really do not understand what a hop count of 0 implies and 
> > why we should bother updating the RFCs.
> 
> Heh, yes. I too wondered about what I should do if 
> application sets TTL = 0. There are two choices
> 
>  a) Packets go to /dev/null (perhaps some obscure testing feature?)
> 
>  b) Just let packets with TTL=0 go out.
> 
> I chose (b), because
> 
>  - TTL is naturally checked only on fowarding, not when sending
>    own packets out. Thus, any TTL just gets accepted and sent.
> 
> If packet with TTL=0 is for this node, it is accepted (again, 
> because TTL test is only for forwarding).
> 
> Forwarding decrements TTL and if result is 0 or < 0, packet 
> dropped (with appropriate ICMP if needed).
> 
> I'm happy with above semantics. I don't see any need to worry 
> about it too much.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------