[openbeosnetteam] Re: routes

  • From: Oliver Tappe <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:50:13 +0200

On 2006-07-31 at 16:32:18 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> Oliver Tappe <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm glad you mention it, since I just wanted to start a new submodule
> > of
> > net_domain (address_arithmetic_module_info or anything like that) and
> > move
> > all the functions that deal with address-comparing/-masking and the
> > like from
> > route.cpp and interfaces.cpp into the new module. I suppose we could
> > even get
> > rid of address_offset and address_length.
> 
> If we do that, we can for sure get rid of address_offset and
> address_length; they are only used for comparison and (not yet)
> masking. It probably depends a bit on the needs of other address
> domains if this is really necessary (in terms of required), anyway, but
> I must admit I haven't had a closer look at IPv6 yet (I just went the
> BONE route :-)).

I have just read up on IP6-addresses and while the subnet masking seems to be 
the same (CIDRized network addresses, only 96 bits longer >;o), but there 
seem to be subtle differences in the differentiation between broadcast, 
multicast and unicast addresses. But we can always move that code out into a 
special address-module when we finally tackle other domains and consider it 
worth it.

What worries me more is that I didn't pay any attention to keep my UDP 
implementation address-type agnostic. There's sockaddr_in all over the place 
and that would mean that we'd have to reimplement UDP for the IP6 domain. 
Bummer! >:o/
I'll better clean this up now, as it will only hurt more to do it later...

cheers,
        Oliver

Other related posts: