Subject: Re: LLMNR and Rendezvous TTL disagreement, a modest proposal

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:31:54 +0900

David Brower;

> The first contentious issue seems to be the TTL field.  There seem to
> be perfectly good arguments for each position, and I am not wise
> enough to say either is correct.  Is it plausible to say "both are
> right" on this point?

No.

					Masataka Ohta

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:49:08 -0500

[ Moderators note: Post by non-subscriber.  With the massive amount of
   spam, it is easy to miss and therefore delete relevant posts 
   by non-subsrcibers. Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

On Feb 12, 2004, at 4:10 PM, David Brower wrote:
> right" on this point?  Have the standard say senders may set the field
> to either 1 or 255, and recipients should accept either value?   Both
> seem just as good at detecting leaked packets.

The reason we can't just do this is that the standard that was agreed 
upon requires that if you get a packet with a TTL that's not 255, you 
have to drop it.   This is the standard Rendezvous adopted, because the 
WG consensus at the time was that this was the right thing to do.   
Subsequently the consensus of the WG changed, and the current consensus 
is incompatible with the old consensus.

At this point whenever this comes up, everybody clams up, with the 
exception of a swift rejoinder from the "can't change the meaning of 
TTL" crowd, and perhaps a quick (perhaps completely inaccurate!) 
explanation of the situation from me.

I do not think that there is consensus that we should change the 
meaning of TTL in LLMNR packets to be compatible with Rendezvous, but 
there also isn't consensus that we should not.   And so we all kind of 
act embarrassed when the question comes up, and I suspect that the end 
result will be a lack of interoperability, because the consensus seems 
to have been called already.   :'}