Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Strange\s+UDP\s+binding\s+behavior\s+\(SO

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Strange\s+UDP\s+binding\s+behavior\s+$SO_BINDTODEVICE$\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:01:54 -0400; We have come across something that may be a bug, unless this behavior was intentional. The problem can be simulated by creating a socket, setting SO_BINDTODEVICE, and binding to a port. Then, in a s; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00131.html (9,252 bytes)
2. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:50:53 -0500; We have come across something that may be a bug, unless this behavior was intentional. The problem can be simulated by creating a socket, setting SO_BINDTODEVICE, and binding to a port. Then, in a se; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00154.html (10,932 bytes)
3. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:06:00 -0400; Well, I would buy that as reasonable, acceptable behavior, but I think the reverse is true. We are binding specifically to say, eth0 on port 694. Someone comes along and binds to "no interface" on po; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00156.html (9,146 bytes)
4. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: inger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:51:57 -0500; Kevin Dwyer wrote: On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:50:53 -0500 Casey Carter <Casey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: This is not a bug, it's a feature! It is possible to use multiple sockets with the same port number bound; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00197.html (13,248 bytes)
5. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: er@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:08:23 -0400; Any possibility of getting this behavior into 2.4 as well? Albeit, without the scoring since that's obviously a new concept introduced by 2.6. (Which I prefer; well done.) I confess that I don't know; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00198.html (9,190 bytes)
6. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: in@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:49:36 -0500; Kevin Dwyer wrote: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:51:57 -0500 Casey Carter <ccarter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: IMHO, the delivery should weigh sk_bound_dev_if much more strongly (7 instead of 2), so that if-bound s; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00199.html (9,782 bytes)
7. Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: Kevin Dwyer <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:01:54 -0400; Hello, We have come across something that may be a bug, unless this behavior was intentional. The problem can be simulated by creating a socket, setting SO_BINDTODEVICE, and binding to a port. Then,; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00873.html (9,252 bytes)
8. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: Casey Carter <Casey@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:50:53 -0500; Hello, We have come across something that may be a bug, unless this behavior was intentional. The problem can be simulated by creating a socket, setting SO_BINDTODEVICE, and binding to a port. Then,; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00896.html (10,720 bytes)
9. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: Kevin Dwyer <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:06:00 -0400; Well, I would buy that as reasonable, acceptable behavior, but I think the reverse is true. We are binding specifically to say, eth0 on port 694. Someone comes along and binds to "no interface" on po; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00898.html (9,231 bytes)
10. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: Casey Carter <ccarter@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:51:57 -0500; This is not a bug, it's a feature! It is possible to use multiple sockets with the same port number bound to different interfaces (where "no interface" is one possible choice). The UDP packet delive; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00939.html (12,063 bytes)
11. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: Kevin Dwyer <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:08:23 -0400; Any possibility of getting this behavior into 2.4 as well? Albeit, without the scoring since that's obviously a new concept introduced by 2.6. (Which I prefer; well done.) I confess that I don't know; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00940.html (9,336 bytes)
12. Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) (score: 1): Author: Casey Carter <Casey@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:49:36 -0500; IMHO, the delivery should weigh sk_bound_dev_if much more strongly (7 instead of 2), so that if-bound sockets are always favored over non-if-bound. I would be happy to submit the (trivial) patch to; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00941.html (9,954 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]