Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution to LLMNR Issue 64: TTL Revisited

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:02:00 -0800

> > For UDP queries and responses the Hop Limit field in the IPv6
header,
> > and the TTL field in the IPV4 header MAY be set to any value.
However,
> > it is RECOMMENDED that the value 255 be used for compatibility with
> > Apple Rendezvous."
> 
> Why not change it to:
> 
> > For UDP queries and responses the Hop Limit field in the IPv6
header,
> > and the TTL field in the IPV4 header SHOULD be set to 255.

Because this is a trade-off. The proper design is to use a TTL=1. The
only reason to use the 255 value, which has a larger exposure to DOS
exploitation, is compatibility with rendezvous. The text that Bernard
proposes is a fine compromise.

-- 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: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:18:46 -0600

> proposes is a fine compromise.

The text I proposed and the text it replaces have exactly the same 
effect.   The difference is that one of them places blame (I think 
inappropriately, although I think also unintentionally), and the other 
does not.   I can't think of any technical reason to prefer the old 
text over the new.   Can you state such a reason?