Subject: Re: htons - POSIX vs BSD
To: Klaus Klein <>
From: Jason Thorpe <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 06/10/2004 07:57:53
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Jun 10, 2004, at 7:24 AM, Klaus Klein wrote:

> You don't have to.  The choice for in_{addr,port}_t was driven by
> 1) long resp. short integers not being the right choice for use in
> wire protocols in the emerging post-ILP32 world, and 2) the group
> which invented these was concerned with (Inter)network application
> programming rather than the definition of an universal byte order
> reversal interface.

Right, I'll just go ahead and clarify that it was a previous version of 
X/Open that specified in_addr_t / in_port_t ... I vaguely remember 
being involved in changing NetBSD's headers, etc. to align with that 
particular specification revision (but my memory is fuzzy, since it was 
quite a while ago :-)

         -- Jason R. Thorpe <>

content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)