Subject: Re: pcap and ICMP messages
To: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cm4gU2VnZXI=?= <email@example.com>
From: mouss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/16/2004 01:33:05
It's not easy to see where you're heading...
however, unless I'm missing something, you only have 3 ways:
- use raw sockets as suggested by Ignatios. of course, you'll need as
many sockets as protocols, but if you only need to handle a finite
number of protocols, it's just a matter of programming.
- use pcap as you did, and get rid of the error messages by:
* ignoring them:)
* droping the packets by ipf as ignatios said
- modify the ip stack. this is only worth the pain if you can "justify"
it, but it's not beyond reach.
Jörn Seger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 15. September 2004 12:04 schrieben Sie:
>>why do you need the IP-header? The kernel's IP stack can handle it fine,
>>normally... (unless you want to do the strange things traceroute asks
> ... hm - not easy to explain: I wrote a simulation and I would like to
> exchange the network layer object from the simulation network by a "real"
> network backend. But the protocols within the simulation can produce packets
> with different ip_proto IDs (e.g. unkown for the kernel), which will be
> handled in a base network layer object. This all should help for "rapid
> prototyping" to get a simulated protocol working on a real network without
> reimplementation for a demo.
> The problems really start, when I try to do things like "running different
> protocols on the same host in parallel" - hm ... do I really need this ...I
> don't know but it would be a "nice to have"!
> That's it - Best regards - Jörn