On (07/27/10 15:52), Sebastien Roy wrote: > One weird thing about all of this is that sockaddr_dl is used at the > link-layer, and our IP interface index concept doesn't exist at that layer; > it's an IP interface concept. It's odd that the range of IP interface index
not that weird: sockaddr_dl is a socket address of type (sa_type and/or sdl_type) AF_LINK. That concept (as well as that of an interface index) is more general across diverse OS'es than "datalink_id_t". > would be at all related to the sdl_index field in sockaddr_dl to begin with. > We do have the concept of datalink ID, but that is an implementation > detail, and not meant to be used by applications. Even if it were not an > implementation detail, it has no relationship with the IP interface index, > and it would sure be nice if there was a correlation between an index at the > link-layer and an index at the IP layer (for the interfaces that have > objects in both layers, such as most IP interfaces plumbed over actual > datalinks). > > -Seb > _______________________________________________ > networking-discuss mailing list > networking-discuss@opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list networking-discuss@opensolaris.org
