On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Robert Story <rst...@freesnmp.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:16:54 -0500 Bill wrote:
> BF> I'm not sure what to suggest as a solution. For those who use
> BF> net-snmp as the agent on a router, where asymmetric routing like this
> BF> is very common, this black hole for the responses is a real problem.
>
> IMHO, support for asymmetric routing is more important that supporting
> broadcast queries.
That's my priority too.
> BF> I think a better solution for responding to broadcast requests is to
> BF> not use the if_index, and just don't specify the source address when
> BF> the request was to a broadcast address. [...] Unfortunately,
> BF> this means having to figure out if a given address is a broadcast, you
> BF> have to get a list of interfaces on the system.
>
> Do we really need to figure out if it is a broadcast address? Or is it
> sufficient to see if the packet destination address does not match any of the
> addresses currently bound to the interface the packet came in on? If there's a
> match, don't use the if_index.
To me, "is it a broadcast address" and "is it one of the addresses
assigned to this interface" are the same level of complexity -- find
out the interface's IP address configuration.
There are other scenarios (e.g., anycast to a loopback IP, or a packet
sent to a multihomed router that happened to be routed in on a
different interface) that would hit your scenario ("this address does
not belong to the interface on which it came in, but yet it belongs to
me anyway").
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotusphere 2011
Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how
to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment
to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
