Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 02:19:31 +0900
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The easiest way to solve the ambiguity would be introduding an
| additional field for the TTL field to specify the type of
| TTL. However, this would break backward compatibility (again!)...
| Currently, I'm not sure the best way, but we'll surely need some
| clarification here.
Actually, the easiest way is just to define it as an unsigned integer
(values 0 .. 2^32 - 1) - with 0xffffffff defined specially if needed.
A negative TTL has no useful meaning, so even if the dhcpv6exts (the version
with the '-' instead of the 'p' in the draft name expired ages ago) draft is
intending to allow a negative value for the valid lease lifetime for some
reason, sending 0 in the node information query would be reasonable if given
negative input (though what a negative value would mean I have no idea ..
"you should have returned this address I am just giving you 30 minutes ago" ?).
That draft needs a better definition of this field.
Then all rational TTL values can be included - the DNS can only handle half
of what can be in the node information reply, but that's OK, what matters is
that the DNS response can be loaded into the node info field, not the other
way.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
