Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:21:42 +0100 From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> To: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help Broadcasting a UDP packet on the LAN:URGENT Message-ID: <20031021122142.GB666@saboteur.dek.spc.org> In-Reply-To: <20031021004250.GA68072@pit.databus.com> References: <20031020174751.60464.qmail@web20805.mail.yahoo.com> <20031020190019.GD8721@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20031020194959.GA64879@pit.databus.com> <200310201521.26705.wes@softweyr.com> <20031021004250.GA68072@pit.databus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote: > And of course any application that actually needs to send such a packet > on every interface can loop through the interfaces, using the technique > on each one, getting the reply, removing the 255.0.0.0/8 alias, and > moving on to the next interface. If it were up to me (as of course it > is not) I'd leave it at that and not clutter up the kernel. I would take the view that applications shouldn't mess with the routing table if they don't have to, particularly if the application in question is a routing daemon... The IP_ONESBCAST socket option doesn't create any clutter; it coexists comfortably with delayed/hardware checksumming and adds virtually no extra latency to the output path. In any event, the idea was borrowed from BSD/OS, and seems to work well there. BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031021122142.GB666>