Re: raw socket, IP_HDRINCL byteorder

>>	how did Linux fixed it? (i don't have any Linux systems around)
>As far as I can tell, similarly to the way OpenBSD did later.  The mtrace
>Makefile shows the results of some experimentation in 1998:

	hmm...

>>	IP_NHDRINCL or IP_HDRINCL2, maybe?
>Don't forget that this will be specifying what happens on the way
>in too.  IP_HDRINCL has historically only ever been significant on
>output, so I think a new name that breaks with history would be better.
>But, before we argue about the name, let's get on the same page on
>what the semantics should be.  I haven't thought about this very
>much, but I think that the right interface is pure IP packets, no
>field munging.  Whether IP options just go in the packet or you
>can use the IP_OPTIONS socket option needs more thought.

	yes, i vote for "wire packet format", i.e. ip_len and ip_off are in
	network byte order, and ip_len indicates length for the whole packet
	(not the payload).  both ways.
	as for IP options, i need to dig into the code a bit more.

itojun

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The BSD APIs Discussion Mailing List
To unsubscribe:
send "unsubscribe bsd-api-discuss" to majordomo-DZEk9q7Sfju/3pe1ocb+swC/[email protected]