Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > In article <463969EB.2BC33B15@xxxxxxxxxxx> you wrote: > > That binds to all stacks, which is something completely different. > > > > E.g. you have two stacks, 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1. > > I dont know what you mean with stack. An Address is an Address. And if you > bind to .1 you do not get Packets which are not IP nor do you get packets > which are sent to .255. I'd like to bind to 192.168.2.0, i.e. to the "ANY" address of that subnet. > > 2 - If you bind to 0.0.0.0 and to the interface, the src address of Of course that should read "If you bind to 0.0.0.0 and *not* to the interface". > > that packet is 192.168.1.1 instead of 192.168.2.1. > > You dont have to bind to the same address on the sending socket. In theory, you're correct. But if you use a third-party framework that's originally written for Windows32, and don't want to change the whole architecture of that framework, you don't have that choice. And more important in the general case: you still get the broadcasts coming in from 192.168.1.0, which you definitely want to avoid. Detlef -- Detlef Vollmann vollmann engineering gmbh Linux and C++ for Embedded Systems http://www.vollmann.ch/ Linux for PXA270 Colibri module: http://www.vollmann.ch/en/colibri/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
