Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:04:11 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi> Cc: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>, John Kelly <jak@cetlink.net>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971205135942.15892B-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971205123045.1812A-100000@kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a mess. I am half way through making up some patches to fix it properly. (literally I have a window at work with the half-editted sources on it :) htons will correctly smash up the lower 16 bits of a long under a little-endian OS. so using htons, while being totoally un-portable will probably work, but htonl will do the correct thing, and the lower 16 bits of the port will become 0. The correct answer is to change teh port numbers where-ever they are in natd to be unsigned short. I am doing this.. I'll add the changes in a few days. julian > > htons works, htonl doesn't. Maybe I didn't read the patch > very carefully - my current sources (natd 1.10) used > htons and I tried htonl which did not work. > > Apparently, the version present in -current is not the > the same as my 1.10. There seem to be a lot of small > changes made by someone. > > Ari <ari@suutari.iki.fi> > Lappeenranta, Finland > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.971205135942.15892B-100000>