RE: draft of a core protocol spec

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Kastenholz [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:35 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [IPORPR] draft of a core protocol spec
> 
> 
> At 02:29 PM 11/7/2002 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>         TTL In the absence of any recommended value in 
> IEEE 802.17, 
> >>>             the TTL SHOULD be set to 255. 
> >>>lb] There is no need (nor a standard way) to indicate TTL 
> to the MAC. The
> >>>MAC can calculate it based on the DA
> >>
> >>There does not need to be a standard way of indicating the TTL to
> >>the MAC. That's an implementation issue.  However, that's 
> irrelevant.
> >>If the MAC can insert the "correct" TTL, that's _probably_ all we
> >>need and I'll revise the spec to say that. One question, when a node
> >>is added to the ring, does the MAC update its notion of what TTL
> >>to use "quickly"?
> >
> >There is *no* way to indicate TTL to the MAC. TTL is set 
> internally by the MAC. And, yes, the MAC adjusts the TTL 
> value as needed, including when topology changes. 
> 
> 
> I just looked. I'd have sworn that there was a TTL field
> in the MA_DATA.request. I just looked. I'm wrong. I'll remove
> all the TTL goop.
> 

There used to be a TTL many draft versions ago, so that's
probably the reason for your recollection :).  It was subsequently 
removed because it was decided that anything above the MAC 
shouldn't need to know about TTL.

-Anoop