> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
