On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:25:42PM -0400, Charles Swiger wrote:
> On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 03:43 PM, Barney Wolff wrote:
> >My expectation is the same as yours, but I strongly believe that
> >anyone doing a new design that deliberately ignores IPv6 is being very
> >shortsighted. "Quite so
On Thursday 23 October 2003 12:39, Charles Swiger wrote:
>
> Also, Barney's comments here:
> ...make sense to me as well, for whatever that may be worth :-)
Worth a lot, actually. If we can get 4 people looking at the problem from
such diverse viewpoints and come to a point where we all agr
On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 03:43 PM, Barney Wolff wrote:
My expectation is the same as yours, but I strongly believe that
anyone doing a new design that deliberately ignores IPv6 is being very
shortsighted. "Quite some time" is now only years, not decades.
It might be useful to consider ano
On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 03:43 PM, Barney Wolff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:23:57PM -0400, Charles Swiger wrote:
What are you going to do when IPv6 comes into more general use, since
it has no broadcast address?
Are you asking what a IPv4-to-IPv6 translator (like gif?) should do,
o
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:23:57PM -0400, Charles Swiger wrote:
> >What are you going to do when IPv6 comes into more general use, since
> >it has no broadcast address?
>
> Are you asking what a IPv4-to-IPv6 translator (like gif?) should do, or
> are you worried about the case of a machine config
On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 02:45 PM, Wes Peters wrote:
The all-ones broadcast is supposed to go to all physically connected
network segments, regardless of whether a particular interface is
ifconfig'ured with an IP that is part of a particular layer-3 subnet.
You should be able to send the b
On Thursday 23 October 2003 11:23 am, Charles Swiger wrote:
> On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 11:52 AM, Barney Wolff wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:55:55AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > What are you going to do when IPv6 comes into more general use, since
> > it has no broadca
On Thursday 23 October 2003 08:52 am, Barney Wolff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:55:55AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> > To me it's not a matter of "boot code" vs. general usefulness so much
> > as it's just obviously the right way to do it. We use all-ones
> > packets well after boot to have o
On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 11:52 AM, Barney Wolff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:55:55AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
[ ... ]
What are you going to do when IPv6 comes into more general use, since
it has no broadcast address?
Are you asking what a IPv4-to-IPv6 translator (like gif?) should do,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:55:55AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
>
> To me it's not a matter of "boot code" vs. general usefulness so much as
> it's just obviously the right way to do it. We use all-ones packets well
> after boot to have our appliances identify each other on the network and
> share
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 03:23 pm, Barney Wolff wrote:
> Bruce M Simpson wrote pointing
> out AODV (RFC 3561) as an example of a routing protocol needing to
> send to 255.255.255.255 on multiple interfaces at once. I withdraw
> my scorn of kernel mods to facilitate this.
To me it's not a matter
Bruce M Simpson wrote pointing
out AODV (RFC 3561) as an example of a routing protocol needing to
send to 255.255.255.255 on multiple interfaces at once. I withdraw
my scorn of kernel mods to facilitate this.
--
Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract o
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> And of course any application that actually needs to send such a packet
> on every interface can loop through the interfaces, using the technique
> on each one, getting the reply, removing the 255.0.0.0/8 alias, and
> moving on to the
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:21:26PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
>
> But does it send the packet to all attached interfaces on a multi-homed
> host? This is the type of bug that has typically bitten such hackish
> solutions in the past. One real solution is worth much more than the
> sum of the so
On Monday 20 October 2003 12:49, Barney Wolff wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 08:00:19PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> > Undirected broadcasts will only work if you do the following:-
>
> I've pointed out before that the gross hack of assigning IP address
> 255.0.0.0/8 to the desired interface s
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 08:00:19PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
>
> Undirected broadcasts will only work if you do the following:-
I've pointed out before that the gross hack of assigning IP address
255.0.0.0/8 to the desired interface should work. I've just confirmed
that doing that, on RELENG
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:47:51AM -0700, sarat chandra Annadata wrote:
> I am need of some urgent techinical help to pull me out of a little problem. I have
> been
> trying to broadcast a UDP packet(actually it is a DHCP offer packet) but
> havent' successfully done it sofar. The following is t
W. Richard Stevens
UNIX Network Programming
Prentice Hall
sarat chandra Annadata wrote:
Hai,
I am need of some urgent techinical help to pull me out of a little problem. I have been
trying to broadcast a UDP packet(actually it is a DHCP offer packet) but
havent' successfully done it sofar. The
Hai,
I am need of some urgent techinical help to pull me out of a little problem. I have
been
trying to broadcast a UDP packet(actually it is a DHCP offer packet) but
havent' successfully done it sofar. The following is the descripttion
about how I have been trying to do it.
1) I am creating
19 matches
Mail list logo
