On Wednesday 01 April 2015 19:57:07 Carsten Bormann wrote: > I didn't do the code dive yet, so I don't understand why there are two > sockets (me not understanding doesn't mean it's wrong). If one is for > unicast and one for multicast, I'd rather reply to the multicast on the > multicast socket. The unicast socket should then simply ignore packets > sent to the multicast address, which can be done by binding to a > specific address (except apparently on Windows) and/or by looking at the > PKTINFO of any received packet.
I don't see why two sockets would be needed. Maybe someone can clarify, though. A single socket is enough for sending unicast and multicast, as well as for receiving unicast and multicast. The one reason I'd see for having separate sockets would be if we needed to send from different ports. You can't send from a different port than the port you've bound to. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
