Subject: RE: Minutes of the 4/30/03 LLMNR Conference Call

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:50:10 -0700

> >Overall, the recommendation was to accept Issue 33 (unicast PTR
query);
> >and Issue 36 (editorial), as well as Issue 35 (TTL=1). On Issue 34,
> >possible compromise language was suggested:
> 
> 	with TCP query/response it is difficult to enforce TTL=1.
> 	do you drop TCP connection if one of packets within a TCP stream
> 	has non-1 TTL?

No, you don't. However, you set TCP to send your own packets with TTL=1.
The three-ways handshake guarantees that if at least one of the two
hosts sets TTL=1, then both hosts are protected.

-- Christian Huitema

--
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: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 09:16:20 -0700 (PDT)

> > 	do you drop TCP connection if one of packets within a TCP stream

The strawman draft -18 doesn't mandate any TTL checks:

http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNSEXT/draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-18.txt

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 10:21:05 +0900

>2.3.  Unicast queries and responses
>
>Unicast LLMNR queries SHOULD be sent using TCP, with the TTL (IPv4) or
>Hop Limit (IPv6) fields set to one (1).  Responses to TCP unicast LLMNR
...

	i see, it talks about sender rule, but not receiver rule.

itojun