Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 07 Jun 2017 03:20:26 -0700
From:      Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
To:        Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@sippysoft.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
Subject:   Re: Anybody using SO_BINTIME with IPv6?
Message-ID:  <20170607102026.8C44C406063@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@sippysoft.com> of "Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:27:37 PDT." <CAH7qZfv8U6QPaybdzkY=b8UVGnSCrbAq9_jB2--S9ouFuit-sQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sobomax@sippysoft.com said:
> SO_BINTIME was ENOTSUPP with IPv6 from the day one.

Thanks.  Is that a literal ENOTSUPP?  Should I get an error from setsockopt?  
Or is that just shorthand for never-got-implemented?

Do you want a bug report?  If nothing else, the man page should be updated.

Just curious...  Why wasn't SO_BINTIME implemented for IPv6?  Since it works 
for IPv4 and SO_TIMESTAMP works for IPv4 and IPv6 I'd expect it would be easy 
to copy a few lines of code.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.






Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170607102026.8C44C406063>