Bruce, >-----Original Message----- >From: Bruce Lowekamp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 12:18 AM >To: Song Haibin >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2PSIP diagnostics: PING discussion > >On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Song Haibin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>I don't understand the purpose of UnderlayTTL, >>>however. >> >> There may be the requirement that one may want to limit each hop underlay >> TTL from the initiator to the destination, if the underlay TTL expires >> somewhere, one may think that the link there is not of good quality. It is >> an optional function, because you can clear the value so that the >> intermediate peer will ignore it. I don't know if this is often be used, if >> many guys think this parameter is of no use, I will delete it for the next >> revision. > >So the thought is to set a max value for the IP TTL header in the >outgoing packet? Cool idea. I have no idea how many platforms it's >possible to implement that on from user level, though. Strikes me as >something very interesting for diagnostics, but I'm not sure I would >want to see it specified in the base Ping. Could be done as a >ForwardingOption, however.
Thanks for your comments. We would like to add more clarification text for the UnderlayTTL parameter in the diagnostic draft. We propose to extend Ping (although the structure of Ping in the base draft is not extendable at present) for the additional functions of connectivity check in the diagnostics draft, and we also define additional Error response codes to the connectivity check. I think it is reasonable to do that. If many people think that is not reasonable, maybe we would define a new method. BR Song Haibin _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
