Greg:
Rfc5881 already specifies using GTSM…this document depends on rfc5881, so
the reference should be the BFD behavior.
Alvaro.
On June 17, 2020 at 2:40:52 PM, Greg Mirsky (gregimir...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
thank you for the suggestion. I have a question. The current version
references RFC 5082:
TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with the
Generalized TTL Security Mechanism [RFC5082].
RFC 5881, while stating the requirement for the TTL or Hop Limit value,
refers to RFC 5082 as the text that explains the benefits of using 255 on a
single IP link. In both documents, RFC 5082 is listed as a normative
reference. Would using RFC 5082 be acceptable or you suggest changing it to
RFC 5881?
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:37 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On June 16, 2020 at 5:01:57 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
> ...
> > > Open Issue 1: Discussion on TTL/Hop Limit = 1
> > >
> > > Proposed Action: Greg has proposed text he will send to the working
> group
> > > suggesting GTSM procedures be utilized. The expected concern is how
> this
> > > impacts existing implementations.
> >
> > This issue is resolved.
>
> As I had mentioned before [1], the use of 255 should reference
> rfc5881: the requirement is one from the base spec, not a new one
> here.
>
> Suggestion>
>
> TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 in accordance with [RFC5881].
>
>
> I am clearing my DISCUSS.
>
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/aiJW3KjYevY83wEDwVj488FSVl0/
>
