Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 20:16:05 PDT From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> To: roberto@blaise.ibp.fr (Ollivier Robert) Cc: wollman@freefall.cdrom.com (Garrett A. Wollman), current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: traceroute with LSRR options Message-ID: <95Jun27.201611pdt.49860@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jun 95 02:41:22 PDT." <199506220941.LAA02391@blaise.ibp.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199506220941.LAA02391@blaise.ibp.fr> you write:
>Speaking of traceroute, it would be nice to have the version
>that support loose sorce routing, the "-g" option...
I attempted to port Matt Mathis's original LSRR patches to our traceroute.
It turns out that Matt's code assumes that, even if you set IP_HDRINCL,
the kernel will include any options you set with IP_OPTIONS. Our rip_output,
however, says:
if ((inp->inp_flags & INP_HDRINCL) == 0) {
...
opts = inp->inp_options;
} else {
...
opts = NULL;
...
}
Is there any reason not to allow the insertion of options with the IP_OPTIONS
setsockopt(), even if the user has set IP_HDRINCL?
(I know that Stevens says the convention is that if you set IP_HDRINCL
then you really mean IP_HDRINCL. But I also think that if you set
IP_OPTIONS then you really mean IP_OPTIONS...)
Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?95Jun27.201611pdt.49860>