[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ms-ospf
Subject:    Re: Experience with unnumbered interfaces and TCP/IP stack from W
From:       "Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu () MARCONI ! COM>
Date:       2001-10-25 0:15:27
[Download RAW message or body]


Alexander:

  I am surprised, the WindRiver VxWorks TCP/IP stack is
  almost same as BSD. In fact, BSD networking stack has
  fine tuned for years.

  Inherently, if you look at the kernel code the notion
  of IP address is used everywhere in the socket API. But
  internally, it is just a matter of how to map "interface"
  associated with it!

  For P2P interfaces, kernel always finds out interfaces
  every where just using, (destination, source, gateway,
  and/or mask) - for example, route additions(rtrequest) etc.
  Look at ifa_ifwithXXX functions implementation in the
  kernel.

  For IP Unnumbered Interfaces you should just borrow a
  valid used IP address from the box (few ioctl calls).
  As the *uniqueness* of "IP addresses <-> interface" is
  gone, you should tune the kernel where ever necessary.
  (for example, multicasting)

  There are so many hacks in BSD to support this feature:
  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-net/2000/10/05/0002.html

--Venkata Naidu

Hi All,

We need to use unnumbered interfaces in our OSPF model.  All major OSPF
vendors support this model, but WindRiver's TCP/IP stack (which we use)
doesn't support "unnumbered interfaces"

Thus I have several questions:

1. If somebody have experience with this problem?

2. Is it possible to use fictive unique IP addresses for defining IP
interfaces, and after that define them as unnumbered for OSPF?

3.What limitations to these unique IP addresses for p2p link we have to
make, prior to define them? (have to be from the same subnet, etc)

Thanks a lot,
Alexander Cheskis
System Architect
PacketLight Networks

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]