lwip-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [lwip-users] Sending to myself


From: Goldschmidt Simon
Subject: RE: [lwip-users] Sending to myself
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:18:56 +0100

Hi,

The routine you created is already included in loopif.c (the loopback 
interface). You only would have to make sure that packets sent to your own 
external IP get sent over the loopback interface. The method to implement that 
would be ip_route().

Simon

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden Im Auftrag von Ceresoli Luca
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 16:23
An: address@hidden
Betreff: [lwip-users] Sending to myself

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is a bug or a missing feature, but here it is: lwip does 
not send packets to its own IP address.
I use raw API, NO_SYS=1, lwip CVS dec 11, 2007.

I see that the code simply does not check if dest_IP == own_IP.
This leads to gratuitous ARP requests, which cannot be answered.

I think the most logical solution would be to redirect the packet up the stack 
when it has reached down to the IP level. But in the absence of any packet 
queue, this would increase the used (processor) stack depth and potentially 
introduce loops.

Currently I solved it implementing the following netif->output(), which seems 
to work, but with heavy (processor) stack load.

err_t myif_output(struct netif* netif, struct pbuf* p, struct ip_addr* dest_ip) 
{
        if (ip_addr_cmp(dest_ip, &netif->ip_addr))
                return netif->input(p, netif);
        else
                return etharp_output(netif, p, dest_ip); }

- Is the above routine safe?
- Is there any safe and clean way to add this feature, possibly to lwip itself,
  avoiding deep (processor) stack usage?


Thanks in advance,
Luca Ceresoli


_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]