On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > If I send a packet to ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff--255.255.255.255, it's because > I want everybody on the Ethernet segment to receive it. If I wanted > only people on a particular subnet (e.g. 10.0.0.0/8) to receive it, I > would have sent it to the subnet broadcast address (e.g. 10.255.255.255).
> It seems I'm going to have to use raw sockets to do what I need to do. > That's exactly what I was trying to avoid by using UDP: I'm replacing > a proprietary (non IP) MAC-level protocol that was implemented using > raw sockets. I have to ask: 1) Why do you have two subnets on the same switch? Isn't that going to be an eternal maintenance headache? Not that it _can't_ be done - obviously it can - but it's likely to confuse the humans involved. 2) Can you replace that protocol at a higher level? Presumably there's a full protocol stack with application data getting wrapped up inside (ultimately) ethernet frames; can you cut it somewhere else and make, say, a TCP/IP connection to the remote system? Chris Angelico -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
