--- Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The source IP address (as returned by getsockname())
> is only set when
> the socket is connected... It follows the same
> logic: for a multihomed
> machine, we know which interface will be used only
> when
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All the code I've encountered which actually needed
> > to perform
> > broadcast on all interfaces was sending
> > subnet-directed broadcasts by
> > hand on all interfaces.
>
> Bind to a socket to a local
--- Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 3) Java sucks in many ways. Today's way is that
...
> > There is no way to query the current machine's
> > interfaces without resorting to
> > native code.
>
> I faced this problem a while ago - in the
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 3) Java sucks in many ways. Today's way is that it
> never occurred to Sun that a machine might have more
> than one IP address assigned to it, so
> InetAddress.getLocalHost() returns exactly one
> address. Unfortunately, just about EVERY machine has
>
--- Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So the question is, is the stack's behavior right?
> If
> > not, what's involved in fixing it, and if so, is
> it
> > documented anywhere?
>
> I think historically, BSD stacks were routing
>
--- Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the question is, is the stack's behavior right?
If
not, what's involved in fixing it, and if so, is
it
documented anywhere?
I think historically, BSD stacks were routing
255.255.255.255 to the
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3) Java sucks in many ways. Today's way is that it
never occurred to Sun that a machine might have more
than one IP address assigned to it, so
InetAddress.getLocalHost() returns exactly one
address. Unfortunately, just about EVERY machine has
two
--- Paul Flinders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3) Java sucks in many ways. Today's way is that
...
There is no way to query the current machine's
interfaces without resorting to
native code.
I faced this problem a while ago - in the end I
cheated
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All the code I've encountered which actually needed
to perform
broadcast on all interfaces was sending
subnet-directed broadcasts by
hand on all interfaces.
Bind to a socket to a local port and query
--- Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The source IP address (as returned by getsockname())
is only set when
the socket is connected... It follows the same
logic: for a multihomed
machine, we know which interface will be used only
when we know
--- "Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Using an IP packet of 255.255.255.255 doesn't mean
> it's a broadcast
> packet. It is going to your default gateway because
> it is outside
> your netmask, which guarantees that it is not a
> broadcast.
1) No, it's still a broadcast packet
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rob Landley wrote:
> > > Under 2.2.16, broadcast packets addressed to
> > > 255.255.255.255 do not go out to all interfaces in
> > a
> > > machine with multiple network cards. They're
> > getting
> > >
--- Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > Under 2.2.16, broadcast packets addressed to
> > 255.255.255.255 do not go out to all interfaces in
> a
> > machine with multiple network cards. They're
> getting
> > routed out the default gateway's interface
> instead.
>
>
Rob Landley wrote:
> Under 2.2.16, broadcast packets addressed to
> 255.255.255.255 do not go out to all interfaces in a
> machine with multiple network cards. They're getting
> routed out the default gateway's interface instead.
Are the network cards on the same network?
--
Jeff Garzik
Under 2.2.16, broadcast packets addressed to
255.255.255.255 do not go out to all interfaces in a
machine with multiple network cards. They're getting
routed out the default gateway's interface instead.
If I ifconfig eth1 down (which has the gateway behind
it), I start getting "no route to
Under 2.2.16, broadcast packets addressed to
255.255.255.255 do not go out to all interfaces in a
machine with multiple network cards. They're getting
routed out the default gateway's interface instead.
If I ifconfig eth1 down (which has the gateway behind
it), I start getting "no route to
Rob Landley wrote:
Under 2.2.16, broadcast packets addressed to
255.255.255.255 do not go out to all interfaces in a
machine with multiple network cards. They're getting
routed out the default gateway's interface instead.
Are the network cards on the same network?
--
Jeff Garzik
--- Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Landley wrote:
Under 2.2.16, broadcast packets addressed to
255.255.255.255 do not go out to all interfaces in
a
machine with multiple network cards. They're
getting
routed out the default gateway's interface
instead.
Are the network
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Landley wrote:
Under 2.2.16, broadcast packets addressed to
255.255.255.255 do not go out to all interfaces in
a
machine with multiple network cards. They're
getting
routed out the default
--- "Richard B. Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Using an IP packet of 255.255.255.255 doesn't mean
it's a broadcast
packet. It is going to your default gateway because
it is outside
your netmask, which guarantees that it is not a
broadcast.
1) No, it's still a broadcast packet when it
20 matches
Mail list logo
