From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:02:00 -0700 Message-ID: <46F16418.3070706@redhat.com> References: <46F13E8B.4050309@redhat.com> <46F15305.2030507@redhat.com> <20070919172653.GB18045@one.firstfloor.org> <46F1608E.7060908@redhat.com> <20070919175700.GC18045@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev , Linux Kernel To: Andi Kleen Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070919175700.GC18045@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andi Kleen wrote: > Spec doesn't match traditional behaviour then. Well, determining whether that's the case is part of this exercise. > IPv4 0.0.0.0 is=20 > traditionally an synonym for old style all broadcast (255.255.255.255= )=20 > on UDP/RAW and it's certainly possible to connect() to that.=20 Where do you get this from? And where is this implemented? I don't doubt it but I have to convince people to change the standard and possibly introduce incompatibility. - -- =E2=9E=A7 Ulrich Drepper =E2=9E=A7 Red Hat, Inc. =E2=9E=A7 444 Castro S= t =E2=9E=A7 Mountain View, CA =E2=9D=96 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG8WQY2ijCOnn/RHQRAlsBAJ9qZRZXNN2VEy136MFIT1daHfju5ACdGiIW k0I5e2BGRjvjbJrrAwtehqo=3D =3DfX+i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----