Hi!
On Feb 13, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Dustin Sallings wrote:
Should we assume that every interface that binds for the text
protocol should also bind for the binary protocol? That seems
pretty straightforward, and will probably be consistent with the UDP
strategy.
I am up for doing that! That is how I would prefer it be done. We
should add a command (maybe stat?) that can tell us what the binary
port is.
I've not been paying much attention to this thread, honestly. Is
there a short summary of the goal of explicit multiple interface
binding? It doesn't seem like it does much over IN_ADDR_ANY in the
general case but become a multiplier for file descriptors (once
there's a binary UDP implementation, it'd be n interfaces * m layer
3 protocols * 4).
With ipv6 the interface is more natural for binding to multiple
interfaces.
For a binary UDP, we should default it on and to the same port as the
binary TCP (in my opinion).
I'm not so much questioning its value as I am curious. Right now,
it just looks like a lot of work for me. :)
Well, the one thing I have been pinged about is that this will allow
someone to push more data if they have been maxing out a single card's
interface. Mainly though, it just makes the interface complete.
Cheers,
-Brian
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
http://exploitseattle.com/ <-- Fun
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.
