From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ramin Dousti Subject: Re: TTL patch buggy? Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:16:14 -0500 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040107221614.GE20346@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> References: <20040107211951.GC20346@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Harald Welte , "John A. Sullivan III" , netfilter@lists.netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Henrik Nordstrom Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:54:05PM +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Ramin Dousti wrote: > > > Can you explain (b) a bit more, Harald? Multicast traffic is being > > dealt with by the routers in exactly the same way as the unicast > > traffic with regards to the TTL (as far as I understand it). > > Yes, but the difference is that multicast does actually use the ttl to > limit the scope of how wide the traffic is distributed, as opposed to most > other protocols just using the ttl to kill forwarding loops. Absolutely. For a sec I forgot all about the dense mode. Thanks, Henrik. However, I still don't see any "danger" about this. It might not be desirable but not dangerous, as multicast forwarding has a builtin mechanism against the loops. Ramin > Regards > Henrik