Hi, Thomas,
At the UNH-IOL we recently received a router implementation that
discards a packet when it receives a packet with a hop
limit of zero. Based on the following quote from RFC 2460,
The packet is discarded if Hop Limit is decremented to
zero
Hello,
At the UNH-IOL we recently received a router implementation that
discards a packet when it receives a packet with a hop limit of zero. Based on
the following quote from RFC 2460, The packet is discarded if Hop Limit is
decremented to zero. If router is the end-node it should
Hi Tim,
On 11/3/10 8:00 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Hi Tim
At the UNH-IOL we recently received a router implementation that
discards a packet when it receives a packet with a hop
limit of zero. Based on the following quote from RFC 2460,
The packet is discarded
Narten wrote:
Hi Tim
At the UNH-IOL we recently received a router implementation that
discards a packet when it receives a packet with a hop
limit of zero. Based on the following quote from RFC 2460,
The packet is discarded if Hop Limit is decremented to
zero
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
The default value for hosts is the Neighbor Discovery
advertised hop limit [ND-Spec]. The default value for
routers is the default IPv6 Hop Limit value from
Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar writes:
The intention of that wording was that the value to be used was the
same one as recommended for general use for IPv4, which IANA records.
What about nodes that are e.g. statically configured?
The intention of the Hop Limit, I think
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Nartennar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
What about nodes that are e.g. statically configured?
The intention of the Hop Limit, I think, is that implementations (not
operations) configure it by default to 64. The value rarely seems to
change, so an operator/user
Hello, folks,
Is there a recommended value for the Hop Limit of IPv6 packets?
The IANA ipv6-parameters file states that the Hop Limit is not a
parameter (?).
FWIW, the recommended value for the IPv4 TTL is 64, and it seems that
some v6 implementations follow the same advice for the IPv6 Hop
There are a number of RFCs with specific values. You might look at RFC
2473 (64), RFC 3122 (255), and RFC 3315 (32). Neighbor Discovery wants
a hop limit of one. each of those specifies a specific case in which
the value applies.
For IPv6 unicast traffic, I think it's fair to say wider
Hello, Fred,
There are a number of RFCs with specific values. You might look at RFC
2473 (64), RFC 3122 (255), and RFC 3315 (32). Neighbor Discovery wants a
hop limit of one.
(Side-tracked, but: think it wants 255, for GTSM)
each of those specifies a specific case in which the
value
RFC 4443 describes how to deal with an IPv6 packet with hop limit field set
to 0 when a router receives it.
RFC4443, Section 3.3:
If a router receives a packet with a Hop Limit of zero, or if a
router decrements a packet's Hop Limit to zero, it MUST discard the
packet and originate
Hi all,
RFC 4443 describes how to deal with an IPv6 packet with hop limit field set to 0
when a router receives it.
RFC4443, Section 3.3:
If a router receives a packet with a Hop Limit of zero, or if a
router decrements a packet's Hop Limit to zero, it MUST discard the
packet
Hello,
Do the v6 recommend any default Hop Limit value?
RFC 2460 does not mention anything in this respect, and the IANA
IPv6 parameters page
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters) does not mention
any recommended value.
FWIW, the recommended value for v4 was 64
(http
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 11:26:58AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I think that the advantages of source filtering are somewhat less
critical with IPv6. I think one of the primary reasons to add source
filtering in IGMPv3 was an effort to conserve on Class D addresses
used for multicasting in
14 matches
Mail list logo
