On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 07:30:18PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> I probably wouldn't need to bind sockets to each interface if I were doing
> purely broadcast traffic. I'm happy with what works for the time being,
> however; I may revisit this if I ever implement IPv6 support for the daemon
> I'm
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:18:57AM -0700, Bill Fenner wrote:
> I think c) (perhaps combined with IP_RECVDSTADDR so that you know
> whether you got a unicast or broadcast) is the correct answer.
> I think binding UDP sockets to tell what interface/address was
> the destination is a historical artifa
I think c) (perhaps combined with IP_RECVDSTADDR so that you know
whether you got a unicast or broadcast) is the correct answer.
I think binding UDP sockets to tell what interface/address was
the destination is a historical artifact.
Bill
___
[EMAIL P
Hi all,
Ok, the broadcast sending problem is solved, as far as I'm concerned.
However, the reception problem isn't:
14766 broadcast/multicast datagrams dropped due to no socket
This despite:
wi0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
inet 1.234.56.78 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 1.255.255.255
udp4
