Alright, thanks Kieran! The reason for being concerned about this is that I want to make sure you cannot mess up your current connection by "adding" the second netif in a configuration interface with faulty parameters.
Can you see any drawbacks (except from speed and conceptual breakage) in patching ip_route to take a src parameter as well? If src-param == netif's local address, use that netif, else do as I used to do. -- Best regards Emil Ljungdahl -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] För Kieran Mansley Skickat: den 28 mars 2011 11:09 Till: Mailing list for lwIP users Ämne: Re: [lwip-users] bind and ip_route On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 10:53 +0200, Emil Ljungdahl wrote: > > If I bind to a port and IP-address of interface B and receives (for > example) > a HTTP connection request, the reply might be sent on interface A, > since > ip_route only selects interface depending on destination address. I'm > not > the guy to tell what is wrong and what is right regarding the > IP-stack, but > shouldn't a netconn/socket/pcb that is bound to a local address, that > is > "owned" by a local netif, only use that netif for both rx and tx? No, the interface used is determined by the route table, unless you've used the SO_BINDTODEVICE socket option (which lwIP doesn't support). Kieran _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
