From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 13 21:21:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1028014E52 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:21:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie@whistle.com) Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id VAA10421; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:18:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <199908140418.VAA10421@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: host byte order in networkin routines?!? In-Reply-To: <199908071725.NAA75325@cs.rpi.edu> from "David E. Cross" at "Aug 7, 1999 01:25:43 pm" To: crossd@cs.rpi.edu (David E. Cross) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG David E. Cross writes: > A friend writing some portable network tunneling software ran into an > interesting thing... when you specify "IP_HDRINCL" with SOCK_RAW, and > IPPROTO_RAW you need to construct the outgoing packet in host byte order. > > This seems wonderfully inconsistent with all of the other socket based > networking interface in FreeBSD, and it is also inconsistent with other > Operating Systems. Would it be possible to get this changed? I can provide > diffs if need be. I suspect most people agree it needs to be changed, but the problem is (as usual) all the legacy code that would break. Maybe if you had a temporary check in the kernel for backwards packets that would cause a core dump.. ? Ugh. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message