Santosh Kumar
|
Ability to send IP packets through a specific Interface
|
Santosh Kumar
07/13/2008 10:50 PM
post10442
|
Ability to send IP packets through a specific Interface
Hi,
Im not sure if this thread should be under general or under technology forum, so I am posting this one under both.
RFC 2292 is currently supported by io-pkt. However, this RFC is only applicable for IPV6. In particular, I am interested
in the section 5 aspects but want to achieve this for IPV4 packets. Section 5. I am providing a brief excerpt of the
functionality this section covers.
"There are four pieces of information that an application can specify
for an outgoing packet using ancillary data:
1. the source IP address,
2. the outgoing interface index,
3. the outgoing hop limit, and
4. the next hop address.
Three similar pieces of information can be returned for a received
packet as ancillary data:
1. the destination IP address,
2. the arriving interface index, and
3. the arriving hop limit."
My question is:
1. This particular ability has always been provided on Linux. We have decided to use QNX instead of Linux but currently
am facing a roadblock to port some features of Linux we were using and one of them is related to the feature mentioned
above. In particular, I'm interested in sending an IP/UDP packet through a specific ethernet Interface via sendmsg
interface bypassing the routing table. Are there any requests previously made to add this support in io-pkt?
2. If the answer to question1 is No, then I would want like to put in efforts to add this feature into io-pkt. Can
someone point me in the right directions? I have already downloaded the source code, am able to compile and have setup
my debug environment. I want to know if there are any pitfalls or things with io-pkt I need to be aware of that could
create some issues. As such I am beginning to compare IPV6 code and IPv4 code to see if I can fit things in just like
what IPV6 does since this feature is already supported in IPV6.
Any help or pointers would be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Santosh
|
|
|