From owner-freebsd-net Thu Aug 16 9:53: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63E137B403 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:53:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f7GGqvK54639; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:52:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:52:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200108161652.f7GGqvK54639@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RTM_INFO In-Reply-To: <3B7BC5CE.7040906@tcoip.com.br> References: <3B7BC5CE.7040906@tcoip.com.br> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org < said: > Another question... when the interface goes up and an RTM_INFO message > is generated, shouldn't the interface addresses be passed? No; there is enough information in the RTM_IFINFO message for a listener to determine which interface is being referred to. At least on my machine it is in any case almost immediately preceded by an RTM_NEWADDR: # first we see the address being restored... got message of size 116 on Thu Aug 16 12:49:52 2001 RTM_NEWADDR: address being added to iface: len 116, metric 0, flags: sockaddrs: (0) 0 ffff ff fxp0:0.d0.b7.54.3e.d3 khavrinen 18.24.4.255 # then the network route is added back... got message of size 172 on Thu Aug 16 12:49:52 2001 RTM_ADD: Add Route: len 172, pid: 0, seq 0, errno 0, flags: locks: inits: sockaddrs: 18.24.4.0 (255) ffff ffff ff # and now our interface comes back up got message of size 96 on Thu Aug 16 12:49:52 2001 RTM_IFINFO: iface status change: len 96, if# 1, flags: -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message