From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 23 12:40:01 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 0FB3F16A4BF for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF8343FCB for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin08-en2 [10.13.10.153]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h9NJduHx026894; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mac.com (dpvc-68-161-244-25.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.244.25]) (authenticated bits=0)h9NJdtbn010317; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:39:53 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: net@freebsd.org From: Charles Swiger In-Reply-To: <200310231145.04241.wes@softweyr.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Subject: Re: Help Broadcasting a UDP packet on the LAN:URGENT 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: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:40:01 -0000 On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 02:45 PM, Wes Peters wrote: >> The all-ones broadcast is supposed to go to all physically connected >> network segments, regardless of whether a particular interface is >> ifconfig'ured with an IP that is part of a particular layer-3 subnet. >> You should be able to send the broadcast packet out from an interface >> which is up but does not have an IPv4 address assigned, right? > > So long as it IS configured with the IPv4 protocol, I'd say yes. Ditto > for VLANs. Agreed. Some switches use a VLAN tag of 0 to indicate a "default VLAN", so it perhaps might be reasonable to select that rather than all of the logical VLAN interfaces configured against a physical parent interface. However, if the capability of choosing which interfaces should participate in the "all ones group" is already in Bruce's code, then that same mechanism could also be used to manage which VLAN interfaces get used. Also, Barney's comments here: > On point-to-point, I've never been really happy that the two ends can > have addresses in different nets, but some people do it that way. > I always prefered to define a /30 (or /31 if the code allows) for the > link itself. But that difference solves the issue of whether the p2p > link should be treated as local or not - if the far end is on a > different subnet, it's remote; same subnet, it's local. ...make sense to me as well, for whatever that may be worth.... :-) Take care, -- -Chuck