lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #31367, Cannot send a UDP datagram to a...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #31367: Cannot send a UDP datagram to a different valid subnet
Submitter: | Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 18 Oct 2010 07:27:34 PM UTC | ||
Category: | ARP | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | None | Status: | Invalid |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | goldsimon |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | CVS Head |
Jump to the original submission
Sun 21 Nov 2010 01:28:45 PM UTC, comment #9: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 21 Nov 2010 01:27:26 PM UTC, comment #8: Pardon me for the confusion, but when trying to find an RFC that tells me how/when to update the ARP information on incoming IP packets, I found none. And this got me to the point again: updating the ARP table from non-ARP packets is not standardized since it is not recommended (unclear when routers are involved, high overhead for every incoming packet). I would even drop the whole code for that, but since we already have it...
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 19 Oct 2010 07:03:05 PM UTC, comment #7:
|
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
Tue 19 Oct 2010 12:35:51 PM UTC, comment #6: The solution for me is easy - I will just make the if at the start of update_arp_entry be optionally removed.
|
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
Tue 19 Oct 2010 12:23:24 PM UTC, comment #5: Even having ip_current_netif doesn't get me there because udp_sendto_if still won't send out without the ARP entry.
|
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
Tue 19 Oct 2010 07:11:52 AM UTC, comment #4:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 18 Oct 2010 09:53:26 PM UTC, comment #3: The simple solution is for the udp receive callback to be passed the netif of the incoming packet - or do we lose that information? Then a udp_sendto_if can be used to reply via unicast addressing. I guess this may be good for the raw API only.
|
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
Mon 18 Oct 2010 08:54:39 PM UTC, comment #2: I use both types broadcasts - this test was global. Subnet broadcasts do work because I use that with a utility that scans devices per PC NIC.
|
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
Mon 18 Oct 2010 08:06:58 PM UTC, comment #1: What Kind of broadcast did 192.168.1.100 send, a global broadcast (I.e. 255.255.255.255) or a subnet broadcast (I.e. 192.168.255.255). In the latter case, is it correct that this subnet broadcast is received by the autoip-device?
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 18 Oct 2010 07:27:34 PM UTC, original submission:
Example:
|
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 4 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010-11-21 | goldsimon | Status | Need Info | Invalid | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2010-10-18 | goldsimon | Status | None | Need Info |
Powered by Savane 3.13-758e.
Corresponding source code
I'll close this as invalid. Please reopen if you think this is still wrong. In that case, I'd be specifically interested if this works on other OSes/stacks (with 2 non-AutoIP subnets, of course).