RE: [RPRWG] Control TTL vs. TTL

[Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The argument thus far has been that:
- We need to support ring sizes of 255; and
- The TTL in RPR header doesn't get decremented while
  on the wrapped path; and 
- The control TTL needs to be decremented for control
  packets even when on the wrapped path.

-Anoop

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Modali
To: Stds-802-17
Sent: 6/30/02 6:18 PM
Subject: [RPRWG] Control TTL vs. TTL


Hi All,

Pl. pardon if I had missed discussion on the contrl TTL value.

Can someone help me answer why control TTL field is 16-bit
value when the TTL value in the ring control field (RPR header)
is only 8-bits?

thanks
prasad

--
Prasad Modali
Chip Engines Inc
(408)991-9800 x116