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