On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 10:24 -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Sebastien Roy writes: > > > I don't think you need it for SOCK_RAW, because you can set the source > > > using IP_HDRINCL. > > > > You can't set the output interface, nor receive the input interface with > > that. If it could do everything that's proposed here, then I really > > don't see why we're doing this at all instead of just doing IP_HDRINCL > > for UDP sockets... > > The original problem being solved is about source address on UDP > output, and getting it right per RFC 1123. You can already do that > with raw IP. > > Interfaces are a red herring. If it supports them as well, that's > interesting, but supporting them has nothing to do with solving the > original problem. > > Plus, IP_RECVIF and IP_XMIT_IF should work for raw, and shouldn't > require any changes (other than perhaps a man page entry). Right?
All true. > > > Plus, when the ancillary data and socket options are generalized across > > transports (instead of the copy-n-paste mess we have today), it's going > > to be more work to disallow this option for raw sockets than it is to > > simply let it work. > > Possibly so. I see nothing wrong with having it work for raw sockets. > Just that it's not really needed, and thus it doesn't matter if it > does or does not work there. It's only connectionless transport > protocols above IP that need this, and (today) that's just UDP. Okay. -Seb _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
