Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:30:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:30:07 -0400 Received: from beasley.gator.com ([63.197.87.202]:1036 "EHLO beasley.gator.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:30:00 -0400 From: "George Bonser" To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" , Subject: RE: [PATCH] Linux default IP ttl Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 03:34:28 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > What problems could occur from raising it to 128? I'd imagine routing > loops might mean a bit more traffic, but if other major OSes are at TTL > 128 and someone is actually having trouble with 64, then why not raise it? I just did a traceroute to one of the IP addresses that fails with a TTL of 64 ... it is in India but the traceroute ends with a different IP address in less than 16 hops ... proxy arp ??? Anyway ... with the address in question is able to access my server farm with a TTL of 128 but not with 64. I have NO IDEA what those people are doing inside their net ... and really do not care. The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that if they can reach me, I should be able to reach them ... and with a TTL of 128, it appears that I can. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/