From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Dwyer Subject: Re: Strange UDP binding behavior (SO_BINDTODEVICE) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:08:23 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20031007170823.41ef2ff9.kevin@pheared.net> References: <20031005130154.5bd9d182.kevin@pheared.net> <3F81F1CD.8050803@Carter.net> <20031006210600.37da62c9.kevin@pheared.net> <3F83276D.3070700@cs.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__7_Oct_2003_17_08_23_-0400_oFn8zMF28kT3g8jy" Cc: Casey Carter , netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org Return-path: To: Casey Carter In-Reply-To: <3F83276D.3070700@cs.uiuc.edu> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --Signature=_Tue__7_Oct_2003_17_08_23_-0400_oFn8zMF28kT3g8jy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:51:57 -0500 Casey Carter wrote: > IMHO, the delivery should weigh sk_bound_dev_if much more strongly (7 > instead of 2), so that if-bound sockets are always favored over > non-if-bound. I would be happy to submit the (trivial) patch to do so > if the networking gurus agree? Any possibility of getting this behavior into 2.4 as well? Albeit, without the scoring since that's obviously a new concept introduced by 2.6. (Which I prefer; well done.) I confess that I don't know who to talk to about such a change. -- - kpd "If at first you don't succeed, redefine success." - Anonymous --Signature=_Tue__7_Oct_2003_17_08_23_-0400_oFn8zMF28kT3g8jy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/gytHN4rbBhHCVDkRAo6BAJ0RHd8TaDctV+UZxdG0hjamdFLcFACfbtte 8tsq4QQLj8PpGSOmciRBHsU= =EgKz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__7_Oct_2003_17_08_23_-0400_oFn8zMF28kT3g8jy--