From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 20 22:08:45 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E5716A401; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:08:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave@dogwood.com) Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.socal.rr.com (ms-smtp-02-qfe0.socal.rr.com [66.75.162.134]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3D543D53; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:08:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dave@dogwood.com) Received: from white.dogwood.com (white.dogwood.com [66.91.140.178]) by ms-smtp-02-eri0.socal.rr.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2KM8gHE008592; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:08:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from white.dogwood.com (localhost.dogwood.com [127.0.0.1]) by white.dogwood.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2KM8a5C021002; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:08:36 -1000 (HST) (envelope-from dave@white.dogwood.com) Received: (from dave@localhost) by white.dogwood.com (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k2KM8aTl021001; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:08:36 -1000 (HST) (envelope-from dave) From: Dave Cornejo Message-Id: <200603202208.k2KM8aTl021001@white.dogwood.com> In-Reply-To: <441F2171.FF9D6DB8@freebsd.org> To: Andre Oppermann Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:08:35 -1000 (HST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (white.dogwood.com [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:08:36 -1000 (HST) X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IP_SENDIF? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:08:45 -0000 > Dave Cornejo wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Some time ago (Oct 2004) there was some talk of implementing > > IP_SENDIF, a search of the mailing list turns up nothing since then. > > Did anything ever happen with this? > > Can you please explain the semantics and use of this option? I have > received a probably similiar request a short time ago. > > -- > Andre > In summary it's a piece missing for FreeBSD to implement the function of the Linux socket option SO_BINDTODEVICE, which forces packets transmitted on the socket to be sent on the bound device. Take a look at this thread on freeebsd-net: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2004-October/005461.html dave c