[Xorp-users] Question on supporting multiple routing tables [PATCH]

[Ben Greear]

Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
>> I can do this.  One question:  In the comments for send_packet, it says
>> if_name is optional for unicast packets..however it looks like the
>> actual code will error out if the ifp is not found:
>>
>>      ifp = iftree().find_interface(if_name);
>>      if (ifp == NULL) {
>> 	error_msg = c_format("No interface %s", if_name.c_str());
>> 	return (XORP_ERROR);
>>      }
>>
>> I assume the comments are wrong, or maybe the find_interface will grab
>> some random interface if if_name is blank?
>>     
>
> Yes, the comments don't match the current processing, because the
> original semantics were relaxed so for transmitting unicast packets
> the interface/vif name can be omitted (and let the kernel choose
> the outgoing interface). We need to rethink that and decide whether
> to keep the original semantics and fix the code or redefine the
> semantics.
>> For the proto_sock_transmit(), I guess I should just get the name from the ifp
>> and bind to that, or would you rather me pass in if_name ?
>>     
>
> You could get the name from the vifp.
>   
It was working for me when I used the ifp.  What's the difference 
between vifp and ifp?

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> 
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com