James Carlson wrote: > Darren Reed writes: > >>The only concern I have had is with strangeness that might happen >>if 255.255.255.255 is seen as a broadcast address that applies to >>only one NIC and is not seen to be local to all NICs. > > > I don't see how 255.255.255.255 enters into this discussion at all. > It's not one of the Class E addresses that's part of the case. > Instead, it's the limited broadcast address. > > You can't plumb it, and still won't be able to once this project > integrates. It's outside the scope. (Perhaps, for completeness, the > IN_CLASSE macro ought to exclude it explicitly. That sounds like a > code review issue, though.)
CLASSE macro does exclude 255.255.255.255.in my code changes. > > >>(non-psarc stuff...) >>Also, we need to fix various commands, e.g. ping, where >>"ping -s 255.255.255.255" returns an error. A code sweep to replace >>inet_addr() with inet_aton() seems required in order to stop broken >>behaviour. > > > "ping -s 255.255.255.255" seems to work fine, at least on Solaris. > I'm not sure what you're concerned about, but please do file bugs on > any problems you find. > This is working in nevada, but apparently was broken in S10u2. Sangeeta
