In message <199508120140.JAA03401@meow.cpm.com.my>, Ronald Khoo writes:
> > Well, BPF is one way to go.  However, I do not really want to put the work
> > into it.  (I have a job, and I am lazy! ;-) )  Why should I do all the work
> > of writing a filter,
> 
> you don't have to write a filter.  If all you want to do is boot the
> machine, use bpf without a filter (but don't put the interface into
> promiscuous mode), and you will get _all_ packets received.
> 

Well, it's easier to write a filter.  But why should I have to re-implement
a rudimentary IP/UDP stack?  Why should I have to parse the link level header,
and the IP/UDP headers?


> > that parses the UDP/BOOTP packets, and also only accepts
> > packets for the local interfaces, or ether broadcast addresses.  Why should I
> > write all the packet stuffing code for stuffing a UDP/ether packet to be sent
> > on a raw interface, when I could have the IP stack to it?
> 
> Why bloat the kernel IP stack with functionality that is only required
> at boot time ?  This specific functionality belongs properly in
> the booting code, in this case, a usermode bootp client.
> 

The functionality is already there!  It should be a simple 1-2 line change to
make the IP stack behave to way I wish it to.

--Toby.
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Tobias Weingartner | Email: weingart@BrandonU.Ca | Need a Unix sys-admin?  |
| Box 27, Beulah, MB |-----------------------------| Send E-Mail for resume, |
| R0M 0B0, Canada    | Unix Guru, Admin, Sys-Prgmr | and other details...    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|      %SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, The operating system has been overthrown         |
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*