Are you saying that the fact the router's routing process that sent the packet to be forwarded considers the packet "gone" even though it's still in output queue's buffer being transmitted?
-- RFC 1149 Compliant. ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 01:25 PM 2/15/02, Hire, Ejay wrote: > >I lab-ed this, and did not observe the TTL incrementing even when the delay > >was over 8,000 ms. (It's not how fast you send the packets, but how slow > >you make the link!) > > Hmm, that's an interesting approach, but I'm not sure it's a valid test. > Think about the layering and modularization of protocols and router tasks. > IP forwarding doesn't know how long it takes to output bits. It couldn't > decrement the TTL based on the delay in sending, even if the TTL really did > still have a time-based meaning rather than a hop count meaning. > > Priscilla > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Michael Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:54 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: TTL and modern (fast) routers [7:35507] > > > > > >AFAIK, the TTL gets decremented by one by a router as it passes it on (if > >it's held under one second), or by the number of seconds it was held if it > >is held over one second. I agree that anything more than 1000ms of delay > >seems outrageous for a single hop these days, but I don't know of anything > >that has changed that "rule" that both you and I describe. > > > >Mike W. > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35529&t=35507 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
