I believe same as Savela here. Pretty obvious to me. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Markku Savela > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
