Re: Routing Socket and New Addresses

2002-01-28 Thread Justin C . Walker
On Monday, January 28, 2002, at 05:03 PM, Andrew wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Justin C.Walker wrote: > >> It is and it is :-}. At least, Stevens discusses it in "Unix Network >> Programming", v1, 2e (sec. 20.3). Different systems, alas, treat this >> case differently. > > My section 20.3

Re: Routing Socket and New Addresses

2002-01-28 Thread Andrew
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Justin C.Walker wrote: > It is and it is :-}. At least, Stevens discusses it in "Unix Network > Programming", v1, 2e (sec. 20.3). Different systems, alas, treat this > case differently. My section 20.3 is on UDP Datagram Trunctation...did you mean 17.3 (Routing Sockets:

Re: Routing Socket and New Addresses

2002-01-27 Thread Justin C . Walker
On Sunday, January 27, 2002, at 08:03 AM, Andrew wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Andrew wrote: > >> but it seems that if I don't read the packet with one read call then >> the >> packet is lost. Is this correct behaviour? I guess if the buffer is >> small > > Well it seems that if you dont g

Re: Routing Socket and New Addresses

2002-01-27 Thread Andrew
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Andrew wrote: > but it seems that if I don't read the packet with one read call then the > packet is lost. Is this correct behaviour? I guess if the buffer is small Well it seems that if you dont get the entire packet in one read it is lost forever. It also seems that no m

Re: Routing Socket and New Addresses

2002-01-27 Thread Andrew
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Andrew wrote: > configured I get a RTM_NEWADDR message. The bit I'm confused with is the > struct sockaddr associated with RTA_IFA (that I assumed would hold the IP > of the interface) has an sa_family value of AF_IMPLINK. If I cast it to a > struct sockaddr_in then s_addr