Bob Keyes wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Ralf Friedl wrote:
>> Bob Keyes wrote:
>>> I originally made this for my own needs, contributed it to openwrt
>>> but think it should go upstream to busybox. I am new here, not sure
>>> of the regular way I am supposed to make contributions, but whoever
>>> is in charge of accepting patches please take a look at
>>> https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/2522 which will explain the rational
>>> for the feature and includes the patch for it.
>> Can you explain how this is different from option -I ? From the man
>> page of the linux ping:
>> -I interface address
>> Set source address to specified interface address. Argument may be
>> numeric IP address or name of device.
>> When pinging IPv6 link-local address this option is required.
>>
>> It seems the -I is supposed to accept either an IP address or a
>> device name. I suggest to keep it compatible.
> in Linux (net-tools) ping this is what -I does. But not in busybox
> ping. -I is used for another option in busybox ping.
Busybox ping says:
-I iface/IP Use interface or IP address as source
iputils ping says:
-I interface (or) address
So both seem to agree. The problem might be that in busybox ping the -I
is not fully implemented. Busybox ping even contains code to detect
whether the argument to -I is a device or an address. It just seems that
if_index is only used for IPV6 ping and not for IPV4 ping.
In iputils ping the code for option -I is like this:
if (optarg is IP-Address)
...
else
setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BINDTODEVICE, optarg,
strlen(optarg)+1)
This seems to be exactly what your code does for option -n. I suggest to
do the same with the option -I, as it was already intended and to keep
both versions of ping compatible.
Regards
Ralf Friedl
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
