Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!panix!not-for-mail
From: Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Problem receiving UDP broadcast packets.
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:22:01 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <iopei9$sin$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <iol1tv$8dn$1@reader1.panix.com> <4dae172e$0$65870$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <iol5dm$rdb$2@reader1.panix.com> <4dae1d82$0$81483$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <mailman.592.1303257124.9059.python-list@python.org> <iol875$ah2$3@reader1.panix.com> <mailman.596.1303260785.9059.python-list@python.org> <iolc32$luj$1@reader1.panix.com> <BANLkTiniO=gXK=s5gXN5Y7SoR7=uWntUPg@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.605.1303269379.9059.python-list@python.org> <iomq63$e32$1@reader1.panix.com> <mailman.675.1303349764.9059.python-list@python.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl.comtrol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1303395721 29271 64.122.56.22 (21 Apr 2011 14:22:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:22:01 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-102 (Linux)
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:3802

On 2011-04-21, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2011-04-20, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree though that you're kind of pushing IP in a direction it wasn't
>>>> intended to go.
>>>
>>> It just occurred to me: You might get some additional mileage out of
>>> popping the network adapter into promiscuous mode. ?In fact, it Might
>>> be necessary irrespective of the rest of your approach.
>>
>> The network adapter is already receiving all the packets I want to
>> receive, so putting it into promiscuous mode would only increase the
>> number of unwanted packets.
>
> I think tcpdump and tshark (was tethereal) will put the interface into
> promiscuous mode so it can see more traffic;

It can (and by default does).  I was using "-p" so it didn't.

> on OSF/1 (Tru64), we had
> to do this manually for said programs to see all that was possible
> (barring the presence of a switch not repeating packets the way
> routers and hubs would).

 * The packets were being sent to MAC address ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, so the
   NIC does not have to be in promiscuous mode to receive them.

 * tcpdump saw them even when it doesn't put the NIC in promiscuous
   mode.

 * The kernel was seeing the packets because it was logging them as
   martians and discarding them (something I didn't notice until later).

 * Turning off reverse-path filtering in the TCP stack allowed the
   packets to be received as expected.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I was making donuts
                                  at               and now I'm on a bus!
                              gmail.com