Kacheong Poon writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > > That ship sailed a long time ago. > > > So we need to repeat the same mistake?
Using the same interface in many places means that code using this stuff becomes simpler and more uniform. I think that's generally a good thing. If there were consensus in the industry that using sockaddr for addresses alone was wrong and that there needed to be a new interface, then I could see inventing something new and starting a transition. As it is, I don't see what would drive that transition (I don't think it'd be _us_), and thus it looks like fracture without real gain. It'd just not be that substantial an innovation to me. > > I see no general problem in using sockaddr (and ignoring sin_port) for > > storing IP addresses alone. > > > Consider a case when we need to handle a list of IP > addresses. What is the benefit of wasting all those > spaces? I'd use an array of specific type entries, not sockaddr_storage, just like sctp_bindx. There's some waste, as you don't need all those sin_port entries for plain addresses but you do need them for binding, but it's not a great deal. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
