From owner-freebsd-net Fri Jun 26 10:38:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20088 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:38:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from alpha.xerox.com (omega.Xerox.COM [13.1.64.95]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA19996 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:38:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fenner@parc.xerox.com) Received: from crevenia.parc.xerox.com ([13.2.116.11]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <40757(2)>; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:37:44 PDT Received: by crevenia.parc.xerox.com id <177515>; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:37:25 -0700 From: Bill Fenner To: fenner@parc.xerox.com, njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@whistle.com, nate@almond.elite.net Message-Id: <98Jun26.103725pdt.177515@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:37:23 PDT Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >The convention of using network byte order is sufficient imho If we were designing this interface from scratch, I'd say you were right. However, what we're really doing is changing a 9 year old poorly-designed interface. Changing an interface that has been in existence and use for 9 years in a completely incompatible way requires some care. Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message