Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!encore!xylogics!loverso From: loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) Newsgroups: comp.sys.encore Subject: Re: Things I miss.... Message-ID: <6925@xenna.Xylogics.COM> Date: 16 Aug 89 14:04:08 GMT References: <8908031737.AA08682@skeeve.mcs.anl.gov> <12006@xenna.Encore.COM> <1000@accuvax.nwu.edu> <6917@xenna.Xylogics.COM> <1057@accuvax.nwu.edu> Reply-To: loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) Organization: Xylogics, Inc., Burlington MA Lines: 10 In article <1057@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: > I'ts really not IP TTL that's the problem (does IP even *have* a TTL > field?). It's TCP's TTL field that's too small: 15. Actually, it is an IP TTL. TCP doesn't have one. The problem is really in the default value for the IP TTL that's given to originating TCP segments. 4.2BSD did two bad things: set the default to 15 (4.3 has 30) and decrement the TTL of incoming IP datagrams by 5 (4.3 decs by 1). John