Open tpennors opened 2 years ago
This feature is really needed, any update?
Hi @rlubos, @jukkar,
This issue, marked as an Enhancement, was opened a while ago and did not get any traction. It was just assigned to you based on the labels. If you don't consider yourself the right person to address this issue, please re-assing it to the right person.
Please take a moment to review if the issue is still relevant to the project. If it is, please provide feedback and direction on how to move forward. If it is not, has already been addressed, is a duplicate, or is no longer relevant, please close it with a short comment explaining the reason.
@tpennors you are also encouraged to help moving this issue forward by providing additional information and confirming this request/issue is still relevant to you.
Thanks!
This request was lost with other issues, sorry about that. I have not heard of anyone implementing this and it is not in my near future to do list. This would be useful feature to have so we can keep the issue open. Patches are welcome of course.
Is your enhancement proposal related to a problem? Please describe. Currently there is no support for IPv4 routing table only IPv6 is supported.
Describe the solution you'd like It would be good to have IPv4 support with the same features as what is done with IPv6
Describe alternatives you've considered Currently I am forced to use option SO_BINDTODEVICE at socket level but a system level solution with routing table would be much nicer.