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

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:48:06 +0900

Paul;
 
>     (1) 1 and 255 have about equal usefulness but protect different endpoints

IETF concern is to pretect the network, to which both Apple
and Microsoft are indifferent.

						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: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:24:58 -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 16, 2004, at 12:03 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> ...that we give Apple's solution the nod based simply on operational
> experience with a solution that has already been randomly chosen.

This is what I would like to see happen.

> But there's still the larger question of "why LLMNR?"  If the WG isn't
> going to advance LLMNR while it remains incompatible with Rendezvous,
> then why doesn't the WG just advance Rendezvous?  Clearly, being early
> isn't always an advantage.  But does it always have to be a 
> disadvantage?

Well, remember that LLMNR addresses one part of what Rendezvous 
addresses - name resolution.   Also, as Bernard pointed out a couple of 
weeks ago, LLMNR and Rendezvous NR do have slightly different design 
goals (actually, he said more than slightly, but I think he was 
exaggerating :').

I think that it's worthwhile to compromise where we can, particularly 
in the 1v255 issue, and not try to standardize the whole Rendezvous 
suite as an IETF standard, because if we try to do this latter thing, I 
think we will just wind up back in the quagmire.

The root cause for Rendezvous not happening here is not that it was too 
early, but that there is strong resistance among certain participants 
in the IETF against some of what Rendezvous does.   I have tried to 
overcome this resistance, and my conclusion after having tried for some 
time is that it can't be overcome through any effort that I'm able to 
bring to bear.

---

From: Brad Hards <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:09:02 +1100

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:03 am, Paul Vixie wrote:
> But wait, I have a proposal.  Given the following three facts...
>
>     (1) 1 and 255 have about equal usefulness but protect different
> endpoints (2) apple only chose as they did because of apparent consensus
> "back then" (3) consensus since then seems to have drifted back into
> vagueness
>
I suggest that we make it "MUST (or SHOULD) send at 255, MAY bother to check" 
as the path to least gratuitous breakage.

Brd

---

From: Andras Salamon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:01:25 +0200

> as the path to least gratuitous breakage.

I support "MUST send with TTL=255, MAY reject if TTL<>255 on receipt",
possibly with a paragraph emphasizing that routers SHOULD discard such
packets if TTL<>255 (though this is perhaps broadening the ambit of the
document too far).

-- Andras Salamon                   [email-masked]