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

Re: shim - transport/app communication

Pasi Sarolahti wrote:

I was not so concerned about the techniques of conversions between
strings and address structures, but the semantic issues that might arise
when the address the application sees might not anymore be the same as
the address actually used in communication. I was wondering what would
happen, for example, when these addresses are being advertised out in
the network as a part of some application protocol.

Worst case is that you advertise a subset of the available addresses.
This does no harm compared to an application which doesn't use the shim, since such an application would fail when the IP addresses pair it is using for communication, fails.

Another example, I guess that bind() with IP address should still select
the interface used for the socket, right?

That's not mandated by POSIX/TOG AFAIK; I think this is implementation dependent.

In principle, if assuming
ULIDs, the parameter address would represent the host, not the
interface. So some of the socket API functions would seem a bit
ambiguous to me.

IP addresses are not the ideal handle for referring to interfaces on a host. That's why the IPv6 socket API uses interface indicies to refer to interfaces.

   Erik