Re: [6lo] Errata ID: 4814

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:29 PM Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I've been trying to catch up on and close all outside INT area errata.  In
> so doing, I've come across:
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4814
>
> filed against RFC 6282.
>
> My inclination is to reject this erratum, since 255 is in fact "used to
> verify that a communication occurs over a single-hop", and this sentence
> provides some background for the document treating 255 later on (section
> 3.1.1).
>
> I agree that the errata as submitted appears to be incorrect. However,
that doesn't necessarily
mean the statement in the RFC is clear. Let's start with the proposed
wording "... a Hop Limit
value of 1 is often used to verify that a communication occurs over a
single hop." I believe a
sender would set a value of 1 to _ensure_ a packet only travels over a
single hop. A receiver
might use the comparison value of 255 to _verify_ a received packet has not
been routed.
However, the preceding sentence in RFC 6282 suggests that 64 is also a
common value for
outbound traffic. In the event, a value of 64 _might_ indicate the packet
has not been routed,
but it might also indicate the packet traveled 255 - 64 = 191 hops before
reaching the receiver,
so 255 seems the only reliable comparison value. (Why would a receiver need
to know this?)

Kerry

If anyone feels I've misread or misunderstood something do let me know.
>
> Thanks,
> -Erik
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>