>Yeah, the so-called "TTL hack".
Care to explain why it would not be useful?
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
In your letter dated Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:49:10 +0200 you wrote:
>> Historically, a popular brand of router would forward packets with LL source
>.
>
>"Historically"? Has this been fixed?
I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes they do fix a bug
and I didn't want to spend any tim
> Yeah, the so-called "TTL hack". I considered that for Babel back when it
> was being designed, then decided that it is useful in an IPv6 world.
This was meant to say "not useful", of course.
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.
> A trick used in some places, such as ND, is to require the receiver to check
> that the hop limit is equal to 255. This ensures that the packet has not
> been forwarded by any router (obviously the sender also has to send it with
> a hop limit of 255).
Yeah, the so-called "TTL hack". I consider
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:47:01AM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> Historically, a popular brand of router would forward packets with LL source.
"Historically"? Has this been fixed?
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
>Nasty comments on list, please, compliments by private mail ;-)
A trick used in some places, such as ND, is to require the receiver to check
that the hop limit is equal to 255. This ensures that the packet has not
been forwarded by any router (obviously the sender also has to send it with
a hop l
