On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 01:16 PM, Wes Peters wrote:
A thought: An attempt to reconnect will succeed, given the scenario above, and ENETDOWN implies that the network is unavailable, so I don't think this is a good response. ECONNABORTED might be better (and EADDRNOTAVAIL isn't really germane).Archie Cobbs wrote:I'm curious what -net's opinion is on PR kern/38544:http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/38554 In summary: if you have a connected socket whose local IP address is X, and then change the interface IP address from X to Y, then packets written out by the socket will continue to be transmitted with source IP address X. Do people agree that this is a bug and should be fixed?Yes. The other end can't possibly reply to address X, so the connection is broken at this point.Do people agree that my suggestion of returning ENETDOWN is reasonable?Wow. There are other possibilities, EADDRNOTAVAIL or ECONNABORTED. It doesn't matter so long as it the errno is unique to this situation across all syscalls that might encounter it; ENETDOWN seems to meet this criteria.
Regards,
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large *
Institute for General Semantics | If you're not confused,
| You're not paying attention
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------*
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
