We've tested with a Windows 2008 R2 iSNS server and noticed that
all targets were listed with port 0 as the port number instead of
We captured a wireshark trace and compared to another iSNS
target and noticed the port was little endian in our case and
big endian in the working case.
I'm a little confused because based on a quick glance at RFC 4171
section 6.3.2 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4171#section-6.3.2)
I would have expected a shift to be required, however we confirmed
that the implementation matches the working iSNS target when
implemented as above and the value passed to htonl is the one
displayed in the Windows iSNS server as the port number for each target.
cvubrugier
commented
10 years ago
We've tested with a Windows 2008 R2 iSNS server and noticed that all targets were listed with port 0 as the port number instead of
I'm a little confused because based on a quick glance at RFC 4171 section 6.3.2 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4171#section-6.3.2) I would have expected a shift to be required, however we confirmed that the implementation matches the working iSNS target when implemented as above and the value passed to htonl is the one displayed in the Windows iSNS server as the port number for each target.