Daria Mehra wrote: > Thank you for the input, see responses inline. > > Darren Reed wrote: >> Presumably this project will be integrating and using DLPI? >> >> Given that this package is no longer maintained, will it be updated >> to use libdlpi instead of directly using DLPI? > > I looked into updating libnet to use libdlpi. This can be done, but > will require source code modifications (which we cannot submit back to > the open source project because it's no longer maintained). The effort > involved will be substantial, at least for me, since I am not > experienced with C network programming. If the ARC insists that this > work should be done pre-integration, I will proceed to do it, but it > will push out the target build. > > I would appreciate technical advice on the porting, something like > this old document which describes how to port applications to use DLPI: > ftp://ftp.anu.edu.au/mnt/disk3/sun-info/sun-faq/Docs/snit-to-dlpi.txt > A similar tutorial on how to port from DLPI to libdlpi would be great. > The manpages do not give me enough direction, perhaps because I am > unfamiliar with the area. > > Would you consider an alternative of integrating libnet as-is, using > DLPI directly, and requesting a later project to port it to use > libdlpi? This could be filed as an RFE and addressed to the group who > owns Solaris networking code.
My concern is that in future we will ship a libpcap that is based on libdlpi and that thus it may work with a different set of interface names than does libnet, possibly leading to application failure because interface "foo0" works with libpcap and not libnet. I'm afraid that integrating libnet, as is, would be a bug (in more ways than one) if it were to use DLPI directly rather than libdlpi. Darren
