Re: TTL Uses ???
Steve Deering <firstname.lastname@example.org> Fri, 14 January 1994 21:52 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15232;
14 Jan 94 16:52 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15228; 14 Jan 94 16:52 EST
Received: from world.std.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21817; 14 Jan 94 16:52 EST
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA17426; Fri, 14 Jan 1994 15:55:35 -0500
Received: from alpha.Xerox.COM by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA17393; Fri, 14 Jan 1994 15:55:29 -0500
Received: from skylark.parc.xerox.com ([18.104.22.168]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <14926(3)>; Fri, 14 Jan 1994 12:55:12 PST
Received: from localhost by skylark.parc.xerox.com with SMTP id <12171>; Fri, 14 Jan 1994 12:55:09 -0800
To: Matt Crawford <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: TTL Uses ???
In-Reply-To: crawdad's message of Fri, 14 Jan 94 11:37:31 -0800. <199401141937.AA14771@munin.fnal.gov>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 12:55:07 PST
From: Steve Deering <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> But ... but ... if you could solve three different problems by > *introducing* one little byte, wouldn't you call that a beautiful, > rather than an ugly hack? Matt, I should have been clearer. What I consider ugly is the use of TTL thresholds in boundary mrouters in order to approximate administrative scope control. On the other hand, I consider the use of small TTLs for expanding-ring multicast searches to be entirely compatible with the hop-limiting function of the TTL field, and rather elegant. Steve