On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:29 PM Erik Kline <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > I've been trying to catch up on and close all outside INT area errata. In > so doing, I've come across: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4814 > > filed against RFC 6282. > > My inclination is to reject this erratum, since 255 is in fact "used to > verify that a communication occurs over a single-hop", and this sentence > provides some background for the document treating 255 later on (section > 3.1.1). > > I agree that the errata as submitted appears to be incorrect. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the statement in the RFC is clear. Let's start with the proposed wording "... a Hop Limit value of 1 is often used to verify that a communication occurs over a single hop." I believe a sender would set a value of 1 to _ensure_ a packet only travels over a single hop. A receiver might use the comparison value of 255 to _verify_ a received packet has not been routed. However, the preceding sentence in RFC 6282 suggests that 64 is also a common value for outbound traffic. In the event, a value of 64 _might_ indicate the packet has not been routed, but it might also indicate the packet traveled 255 - 64 = 191 hops before reaching the receiver, so 255 seems the only reliable comparison value. (Why would a receiver need to know this?)
Kerry If anyone feels I've misread or misunderstood something do let me know. > > Thanks, > -Erik > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
