Multi-Interface Patch

[Brian Aker]

Hi!

On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:06 AM, Dustin Sallings wrote:

>> I am up for doing that! That is how I would prefer it be done. We  
>> should add a command (maybe stat?) that can tell us what the binary  
>> port is.
>
> 	I'd actually like something like ``capabilities.''  There are are  
> all of these functionality patches flying around.  It'd be good to  
> be able to ask which ones are there.

I'd be up for something like that. Another verb?

>> Well, the one thing I have been pinged about is that this will  
>> allow someone to push more data if they have been maxing out a  
>> single card's interface. Mainly though, it just makes the interface  
>> complete.
> 	That's interesting.  I guess I'd expect IN_ADDR_ANY to be just as  
> good here.  I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.  :)


You can do something like have four cards and bind just three for  
example.

Cheers,
	-Brian

BTW still disliking the lack of key in the binary protocol (playing  
with it on flight). I suspect I am going to have to pack it with the  
value to make it work for me. The state issues of tracking key plus +  
identifiers are just too much overhead. I found myself very cranky on  
the flight about this. Of course it may had to do more with the guy  
who sat next to me who really stank... but hey, gotta take out the  
travel aggravation somewhere :)

--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/                     <-- Me
http://tangent.org/                <-- Software
http://exploitseattle.com/    <-- Fun
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.