[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lwip-devel] lwIP UDP and TFTP
From: |
Atte Kojo |
Subject: |
RE: [lwip-devel] lwIP UDP and TFTP |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:18:13 +0200 |
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 12:16, Kieran Mansley wrote:
> Having had a read through the relevant bit in TCP/IP Illustrated (Section
> 23.7 - udp_input) it would seem that the standard behaviour is to match
> against both port numbers (as lwIP currently does) *if* they are not
> wildcarded. If the application has bound to both a local and destination
> port, then those should match. If the application wants to receive from
> multiple remote ports, then it should leave the remote port wildcarded.
> Maybe lwIP is filling in this value when it shouldn't, but I don't think
> it's quite as simple as just never matching on the remote port.
>
> The concept of a connection is valid in UDP. Although it is a
> connectionless protocol (meaning there is no handshake before data are
> sent, or after all data have been received) that doesn't mean a UDP
> socket can't be connected to a particular pair of ip addresses & port
> numbers. The problem is with English, where the word "connection" is
> overloaded and means many different things.
You're right. My bad.
The original issue still remains, though; so I created a workaround by
excplicitly setting the UDP_FLAGS_CONNECTED off after netconn_connect()
so that I can send a request to one port and receive a response from
another.
--
IOW, "not a tty" used to mean "WTF are you using ioctls here?"
- Al Viro explaining ENOTTY on linux-kernel
- [lwip-devel] lwIP UDP and TFTP, Atte Kojo, 2003/11/26
- RE: [lwip-devel] lwIP UDP and TFTP, Zschocke, Florian, 2003/11/26
- RE: [lwip-devel] lwIP UDP and TFTP, Zschocke, Florian, 2003/11/26
- RE: [lwip-devel] lwIP UDP and TFTP, Zschocke, Florian, 2003/11/26