From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 8 00:07:50 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA20630 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cedb.dpcsys.com (cedb.DPCSYS.COM [165.90.143.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA20620 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cedb (cedb.DPCSYS.COM [165.90.143.3]) by cedb.dpcsys.com (8.6.10/DPC-1.0) with SMTP id AAA08903; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:04:02 -0700 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:04:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Busarow X-Sender: dan@cedb To: David Greenman cc: Jean-Marc Frailong , hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ISC dhcp, AF_UNSPEC & bpf bugs In-Reply-To: <199606080600.XAA12797@Root.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, David Greenman wrote: > >I am currently trying to port the ISC DHCP server to FreeBSD. In the > > [ ... ] > >1. When sending a packet via BPF, the ether type gets byte-swapped. > > This issue keeps coming up - I think it was the AppleTalk people the last > time. I personally could care less which way it is and don't have an opinion. Since user applications should _always_ use htons or nstoh (I don't believe anyone has ever disputed that), the libary and system calls should _always_ return network order. So system/system or system/library calls should _always_ expect to receive their natural byte order (network) and not use a user (application) level function (nstoh). What could possibly cause you to decide otherwise? Now, I can see where a specific application might have trouble deciding whether it was user level or not but bpf should not have any such confusion. Dan -- Dan Busarow 714 443 4172 DPC Systems Dana Point, California