Sebastien Roy wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 07:51 -0700, 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.
>>
>
> FYI, a libdlpi-based libpcap (PSARC/2008/288) was integrated into
> snv_93, so the future is now. :-)
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Indeed. With Clearview UV, libnet would either have to be modified to
> either use libdlpi, or minimally be modified to open DLPI devices out
> of /dev/net in order to function with vanity naming. That part, at
> least, is architectural and needs to be addressed by this case.
>
> -Seb
>
>
>
This sounds like it really needs to be a Big Question. Unfortunately,
with Clearview, the older style DLPI applications are busted as they
won't know how to locate devices.
-- Garrett
