Subject: Accept: LL29 Link-local sources should specify TTL=1

From: "Subrata Goswami" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:43:35 -0800

After looking at arguments from both sides (TTL=1 and TTL=255), I would
say both sides have fairly strong points  in favor.  

At this point I  think at TTL=255 represents a more accurate
representation of where the packet originated.  A TTL=1  represents a
packet which possibly might have gone through 254 hops (assuming no fowl
play), whereas a TTL=255 makes sure that the packet has not gone through
any router/hops hence originated in that link.

A TTL=1 represents the spirit of LL better as any router would not let
the packet get out of the link. This holds true for any router, existing
(there are an awful lot of those) and future.  Hence this choice offers
a better backward compatibility.

The TTL=255 folks  forward the argument that by prohibiting any HOST to
not forward traffic  to a router ( a big change in the IP stack) or
replacing all deployed routers to be LL aware  (a big check is required
here) should take care of the compatibility issue.  No wonder issue LL25
was not popular with them.

My vote is for TTL=1

Subrata