netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] in.tftpd and aliased interfaces

To: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] in.tftpd and aliased interfaces
From: Fabio Olive Leite <olive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:33:08 -0300
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20000727121913T.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:19:13PM +0900
References: <20000726155216.M18562@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000727121913T.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.2i
Hi there,

On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:19:13PM +0900, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI wrote:
) In article <20000726155216.M18562@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed, 26 Jul 2000 
15:52:16 -0300), Fabio Olive Leite <olive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:
) 
) > If the server binds to 10.0.17.26, everything works ok. Since tftp uses
) > udp, we can't obtain (AFAIK, pleased to be proved wrong on this) the IP
) > that the client used to reach us and bind to that, so that things would
) > work fine without any odd changes. What I did to solve this is a small
) 
) IP_PKTINFO for IPv4 / IPV6_PKTINFO for IPv6 ?

Sorry, I don't get it. Are those sockoptions or ioctls I should use?

-- 
( Fábio Olivé Leite -- Conectiva HA Team -- olive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx )
(     PPGC/UFRGS MSc candidate  --  Advisor: Taisy Silva Weber     )
( Linux - Distributed Systems - Fault Tolerance - Security - Pizza )

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>