From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 27 1: 4:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from starbug.ugh.net.au (starbug.ugh.net.au [203.31.238.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A89237B417 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 01:04:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by starbug.ugh.net.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 89565A842; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:04:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by starbug.ugh.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868CC54F3 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:04:11 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:04:11 +1000 (EST) From: Andrew To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Routing Socket and New Addresses In-Reply-To: <20020123123040.S88192-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au> Message-ID: <20020127185931.R26475-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au> X-WonK: *wibble* MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 is 0. Well it turns out that this was a combination of a bug in my code (*red face*) and something else. The something else I haven't quite worked out 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 and a number of packets (such as wehn an interface goes up or down) then it might happen but there shouldnt be that much time between read calls. I'll play with it a bit more tonight. Thanks, Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message