Having problems with limited broadcast

[Bruce M. Simpson]

Peter Steele wrote:
>> The folk who point out that link-local addresses could be used, have
>>     
> an 
>   
>> interesting suggestion which might work for you.
>>     
>
> It's definitely interesting, but it is very likely that some of our
> customers will want to be able to set their own IP ranges and not be
> limited to 169.254/16. So we need a more generic solution.

Sounds like it's bpf/pcap city for you guys.

A similar bump-in-the-stack to SO_BINDTODEVICE, e.g. let's call it 
IP_SENDIF has been on the drawing board, but it needs appropriate 
security screening -- the ability to bypass the forwarding tables, 
whilst specifying an interface e.g. by index or name, would be desirable 
only for certain privileged processes.

BTW: If you guys are already looking at scapy, you may also wish to give 
pcs.sourceforge.net a look as an alternative.

It is a Python project which I did some hacking on with George 
Neville-Neill who started it. It has BPF/PCAP support out of the box and 
has a number of powerful features, including a packet-level expect() 
facility, which works in a very similar manner to pexpect (Python expect 
for text streams).

I added a scapy-like concatenation syntax ('/' operator) to it as that 
makes plugging packet chains together that much easier.

I have the beginnings of an IGMPv3 test suite in my home repo written 
using PCS, it uses pcap capture. I imagine a DHCP like protocol could 
easily be implemented using PCS too.

cheers
BMS