From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 11 14:21:42 2003 Return-Path: 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 8504D37B401; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.redlinenetworks.com (mail.redlinenetworks.com [216.136.145.172]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD6443F93; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:21:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sreekanth@redlinenetworks.com) Received: from SREELAPTOP (dhcp-174.redlinenetworks.com [192.168.40.174]) h6BLLdV84637; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:21:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sreekanth@redlinenetworks.com) From: "Sreekanth" To: "'Don Lewis'" , Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:21:41 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c347f2$6c2ca9f0$ae28a8c0@SREELAPTOP> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 In-Reply-To: <200307112109.h6BL9mM7018764@gw.catspoiler.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: mgrooms@shrew.net Subject: RE: broadcast udp packets ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:21:42 -0000 Couldn't it be done just by executing the following command ? #route add 255.255.255.255 -net 255.255.255.255 -ifp [primary interface] I know it is kind of crude but it works in my case :-) Sreekanth > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Don Lewis > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:10 PM > To: wes@softweyr.com > Cc: mgrooms@shrew.net; freebsd-net@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: broadcast udp packets ... > > > On 11 Jul, Wes Peters wrote: > > > > What we observed on our embedded system is the packet gets > sent on all > > attached interfaces, with dest IP 255.255.255.255, and a > src IP of the > > local address that has the default route. If there isn't a default > > route, sending to 255.255.255.255 fails with "no route to host." > > > > This is bogus, so I propose to change it to a special case, where > > packets sent to 255.255.255.255 will be sent on each attached > > interface, with src IP of the interface "primary" address. > Does this > > sound reasonable? Should it work without a default route? > (I think it > > should, the special case of the all-call broadcast > shouldn't even go > > into rtalloc.) > > This sounds good. I think it should work without a default > route. _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/free> bsd-net > To > unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 6/30/2003 > >