From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 11 17:00:58 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 E1F4837B401; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E21243FB1; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:00:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from salty.rapid.stbernard.com (corp-2.ipinc.com [199.245.188.2]) by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6845B6B2; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:00:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr.com To: Don Lewis Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:00:54 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <200307112109.h6BL9mM7018764@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <200307112109.h6BL9mM7018764@gw.catspoiler.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307111700.54922.wes@softweyr.com> cc: mgrooms@shrew.net cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org 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: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:00:59 -0000 On Friday 11 July 2003 14:09, Don Lewis wrote: > 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. I forgot to say "on all interfaces which have broadcast enabled," which effectively weeds out the loopback interface amongst others. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com