On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:07 AM, Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > gue since it's optional, if you don't have it, then > > don't include it in the reply. > > That was the argument I was making. > > > So to use traceroute(since the source is > > certainly different, and also the port number is different), even it > > returns a nexthop in this case, it could be a totally misleading > > information. > True. It would be correct for the traceroute, though, but it wouldn't > necessarily match what is happening with payload packets. Sure - but that argument applies for all the information that traceroute returns. I think the fix for that is elsewhere, where one can use the application-specific information with a modified traceroute. The difficulty, of course, is knowing when to terminate the traceroute at the destination without messing up the application. Alia
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
