North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BGP TTL check in 12.3(7)T
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > You have an interesting point WRT the TTL 0. Perhaps if you receive > > a packet with a TTL of 0 that is destined for yourself you should just > > accept it? > > The interesting thing is that packets with a TTL of 0 wouldn't > ordinarily be seen in the wild. A router won't forward a packet with a > TTL of 1 (as this becomes 0 during the forwarding process) and a host > that sends out packets with a TTL 0 can only expect to communicate on > the local subnet. (So I guess doing all of this with TTL 0 rather than > 255 would have been just as effective.) Even sending packets with TTL=0 is invalid, so this is a moot point. Or were you proposing modifying the sending and receiving implementations and the IPv4/6 specifications? >From hosts requirements for v4, for example: A host MUST NOT send a datagram with a Time-to-Live (TTL) value of zero. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|