David,
Lets stop this. My previous message says it all. The issue about
transaction ID is fully disclosed. There will be no further input from
me on this issue. If you have substantive input, I am willing to
participate. Otherwise, I intend to get along with more important issues.
Dave
David Schwartz wrote:
"Danny Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schwartz wrote:
I would therefore contend
that a protocol
that has this requirement gratuitiously is flawed.
Right, so NTP is flawed because it does not put the IP address in the
payload, thus requiring you to get it from the kernel if you need it. (I
don't agree with your premises, but they lead inexorably to this
conclusion.)
As long as you don't receive packets on the wildcard addresses your
response will go out using the same address as the packet was received
on. It's the wildcard addresses that cause the problem and you cannot
know which address the kernel may choose.
Right. RFC1123 says:
* "SHOULD"
This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
ignore this item, but the full implications should be
understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing
a different course.
and
When the local host is multihomed, a UDP-based request/response
application SHOULD send the response with an IP source address
that is the same as the specific destination address of the UDP
request datagram.
What this means is that a UDP-based request/response application must
send responses with the source address that was the destination in the reply
unless the full implications of not doing so are understood and the case is
carefully weighed. Failure to do this is failure to comply with RFC1123.
RFC1123 states the host *requirements* for being part of the Intenet.
DS
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
