From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Braun <michael-dev@fami-braun.de>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:42:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170109124231.GA9086@otheros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1483949149.17582.1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
>
> > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211
> > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet
> > header?
>
> But it does, for example RFC 1122 states:
>
> When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address,
> the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP
> multicast address.
>
> A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via
> a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify
> an IP multicast or broadcast destination address.
This example is the other way round. It specifies how the IP
destination should look like in case of link-layer broadcast. Not
how the link-layer destination should look like in case of a
multicast/broadcast IP destination.
Any other examples?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>,
Michael Braun <michael-dev@fami-braun.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:42:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170109124231.GA9086@otheros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1483949149.17582.1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
>
> > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211
> > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet
> > header?
>
> But it does, for example RFC 1122 states:
>
> When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address,
> the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP
> multicast address.
>
> A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via
> a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify
> an IP multicast or broadcast destination address.
This example is the other way round. It specifies how the IP
destination should look like in case of link-layer broadcast. Not
how the link-layer destination should look like in case of a
multicast/broadcast IP destination.
Any other examples?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Braun <michael-dev@fami-braun.de>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:42:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170109124231.GA9086@otheros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1483949149.17582.1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
>
> > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211
> > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet
> > header?
>
> But it does, for example RFC 1122 states:
>
> When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address,
> the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP
> multicast address.
>
> A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via
> a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify
> an IP multicast or broadcast destination address.
This example is the other way round. It specifies how the IP
destination should look like in case of link-layer broadcast. Not
how the link-layer destination should look like in case of a
multicast/broadcast IP destination.
Any other examples?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-09 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-02 19:32 [Bridge] [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Linus Lüssing
2017-01-02 19:32 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-02 19:32 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-03 11:58 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2017-01-03 11:58 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov via Bridge
2017-01-03 11:58 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2017-01-03 13:15 ` [Bridge] " Felix Fietkau
2017-01-03 13:15 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-06 12:47 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-06 12:47 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-06 12:47 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-06 13:52 ` [Bridge] " Felix Fietkau
2017-01-06 13:52 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-06 13:54 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-06 13:54 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-06 13:54 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-06 13:54 ` [Bridge] " Felix Fietkau
2017-01-06 13:54 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-07 10:32 ` [Bridge] " M. Braun
2017-01-07 10:32 ` M. Braun
2017-01-07 10:32 ` M. Braun
2017-01-07 14:55 ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2017-01-07 14:55 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-07 14:55 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 8:08 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 8:08 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 8:08 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 11:44 ` [Bridge] " M. Braun
2017-01-09 11:44 ` M. Braun
2017-01-09 11:44 ` M. Braun
2017-01-09 12:15 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 12:15 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 12:15 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 15:25 ` [Bridge] " michael-dev
2017-01-09 15:25 ` michael-dev
2017-01-09 15:47 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 15:47 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 15:47 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 21:23 ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 21:23 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 21:30 ` [Bridge] " Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-09 21:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-09 21:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-10 4:18 ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2017-01-10 4:18 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-10 4:18 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-10 10:56 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-10 10:56 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-10 10:56 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-10 17:17 ` [Bridge] " Dave Taht
2017-01-10 17:17 ` Dave Taht
2017-01-10 17:23 ` [Bridge] " Felix Fietkau
2017-01-10 17:23 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-10 17:23 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-10 18:24 ` [Bridge] " Dave Taht
2017-01-10 18:24 ` Dave Taht
2017-01-10 18:24 ` Dave Taht
2017-01-10 21:27 ` [Bridge] " Felix Fietkau
2017-01-10 21:27 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-10 21:27 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-11 11:26 ` [Bridge] " IgorMitsyanko
2017-01-11 11:26 ` IgorMitsyanko
2017-01-11 11:30 ` [Bridge] " Felix Fietkau
2017-01-11 11:30 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-11 12:15 ` [Bridge] " IgorMitsyanko
2017-01-11 12:15 ` IgorMitsyanko
2017-01-11 12:21 ` [Bridge] " Felix Fietkau
2017-01-11 12:21 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-07 15:15 ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2017-01-07 15:15 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-07 15:15 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 8:05 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 8:05 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 8:05 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 12:42 ` Linus Lüssing [this message]
2017-01-09 12:42 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 12:42 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 12:44 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 12:44 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 12:44 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 23:12 ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 23:12 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 23:12 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-11 9:17 ` [Bridge] " Johannes Berg
2017-01-11 9:17 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-11 9:17 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-07 3:13 ` [Bridge] " Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-07 3:13 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-07 3:13 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-07 3:13 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-07 15:06 ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2017-01-07 15:06 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-07 15:06 ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 8:36 ` [Bridge] " Jean-Pierre Tosoni
2017-01-09 8:36 ` Jean-Pierre Tosoni
2017-01-09 8:36 ` Jean-Pierre Tosoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170109124231.GA9086@otheros \
--to=linus.luessing@c0d3.blue \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael-dev@fami-braun.de \
--cc=nbd@nbd.name \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.