Darren Reed wrote:
> There's every chance that specifying that property, on a per-interface
> basis, could be meaningful, if/when it is assigned an address. I chose
> this example for that reason - it doesn't seem like it should be per-
> interface but it can be applied in that way.
>
> If, for example, bge1 is 1.1.1.1 and bge2 is 2.2.2.2, then I can have
> the same application getting anonymous ports from different ranges.
> Or I can specify different reserved port sets for them (a better example
> that doesn't seem like it should immediately apply.)
>
> So I suppose the point of this is, is there any reason not to allow all
> ULP properties to be per interface in the same way as for IP properties?
But is there a reason why a ULP property needs to be tied
to an IP interface (or address)? Using the example above,
what is the anonymous port range used by an SCTP association
bound to both bge1 and bge2? And how about a TCP socket
bind(INADDR_ANY/0) and then connect()? Which anonymous port
range does the stack use? Does it make sense for the stack
to "randomly" pick a local address and use that range even
when latter on the address is not the preferred one to do
the connect()?
--
K. Poon.
kacheong.poon at sun.com
