Darren Reed wrote: > Daria Mehra wrote: >> Darren Reed wrote: >>> 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. >> >> If porting of libpcap to use libdlpi is a future project, shouldn't >> the same project include updating libnet, so it is done at the same >> time? I read your comment to mean that today's version of libpcap >> (0.9.8) is using DLPI directly, just like libnet. Since the two >> libraries are often used together, it seems sensible to keep them in >> lockstep with respect to DLPI/libdlpi support. > > Please see PSARC/2008/288. > Integration of libpcap, using libdlpi, was approved earlier this year > by PSARC. > > Thus my concern arises from the already approved case for libpcap that > will > use libdlpi and the pending one for libnet that appears to not (want to.)
Thank you for pointing out the PSARC case for libpcap integration with libdlpi, I was not aware of this recent initiative. The webrev will come in handy if I am to proceed with updating libnet to use dlpi, which is something I'm prepared to do if the whole ARC feels it is necessary. This request expands the scope of libnet's integration case compared to our original intentions, and I will need a firm direction from the ARC in order to get this work scheduled. -- daria
