Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

socket create returns 0x23(decimal 35) error code i.e, it returns ENOTSUP

170 views
Skip to first unread message

sai

unread,
Mar 19, 2002, 4:36:42 AM3/19/02
to
Hi,
When I try to create a routing socket using the function call socket
as below, I get 0x23 error

sockfd = socket(AF_ROUTE,SOCK_RAW,0);

Please let me know if anything else needs to be done.

Rgds
sai

Hwa Jin Bae

unread,
Mar 19, 2002, 6:57:00 PM3/19/02
to
PF_ROUTE is not supported as far as I know. The support can be added, but
you need source code.

--
Hwa Jin Bae
mailto:h...@pso.com
http://www.pso.com

sai

unread,
Mar 20, 2002, 12:51:45 AM3/20/02
to
How do we add the source code & can we get any plug-in for enabling
routing sockets in VxWorks ??

John

unread,
Mar 20, 2002, 4:40:14 AM3/20/02
to
Hello,

"Hwa Jin Bae" <h...@pso.com> wrote in message news:<u9fk4j7...@corp.supernews.com>...


> PF_ROUTE is not supported as far as I know. The support can be added, but
> you need source code.

Not true; there is a component called INCLUDE_NETINET_RTSOCK that adds
support for routing sockets. This is in AE, and should be in later
versions of T2 (the first date in the source file is '96).

Rgds,

John...

Hwa Jin Bae

unread,
Mar 20, 2002, 3:09:00 PM3/20/02
to
I trust that John is correct. My knowledge in this area is out dated.
Original BSD code certainly had rtsock support. And there is no good
reason to leave it out. I suppose it was not.

doug dotson

unread,
Mar 20, 2002, 3:41:28 PM3/20/02
to
It's present in Tornado 2.02 under network components->
networking protocols->network routing protocols->
BSD Routing Sockets. It defines INCLUDE_ROUTE_SOCK.

doug

"John" <john_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:488e459a.02032...@posting.google.com...

Hwa Jin Bae

unread,
Mar 20, 2002, 7:10:31 PM3/20/02
to
Yes folks, rtsock is indeed in Tornado. I just checked and it seems to be
there.

Trivia: rtsock is not really absolutely necessary in vxWorks, a lot of
route.c functions are directly accessible to programmers. (Undocumented
though). rtsock is really needed for systems like Unix where there is a
clear division between user and kernel mode. User programs can't call
route.c functions or access data structures directly. So they use rtsock
instead on Unix. But in VxWorks, it is really not a requirement -- other
than for competibility.

David Laight

unread,
Mar 21, 2002, 6:09:21 AM3/21/02
to
Hwa Jin Bae wrote:

Stuck me it was there because of lazyness.....
Seems a 'useful' way to increase the code size :-)

I also looked at all the uses of the 'System buffer pool'.
Apart from one bit of the routing code (which probably
never happens) these are always used with the semantics
of malloc() and free() - except that the memory overhead
is significantly larger.

David

Joe Durusau

unread,
Mar 19, 2002, 11:21:56 AM3/19/02
to

Check whether your system has AF_ROUTE defined. Mine (5.3) doesn't.

Speaking only for myself,

Joe Durusau

0 new messages