From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
To: Ying Xu <yinxu@redhat.com>
Cc: nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
liuhangbin@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net] net: bridge: remove ipv6 zero address check in mcast queries
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:15:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181217131550.GP1713@otheros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALRz_Py6ogxQsnR-5w-92At1z51M76bgMAeO9A9xqhCFy1pApA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi and thanks for your reply!
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:32:16AM +0800, Ying Xu wrote:
> I think the scenario mentioned above is abnormal.
Can we agree, that this scenario, if switch A and B were using the
current bridge code, has issues right now which it did
not have before that patch?
I also do not quite understand what you mean with "abnormal". Do
you think that it is unlikely to have two snooping switches and
general queries with a 0.0.0.0 source?
Note that with the current bridge code and according to RFC3376
and RFC2236, as soon as a query with a 0.0.0.0 source is sent somewhere
in the broadcast domain, it will become the selected querier [*].
> The source of query indicats that is a real router or only a switch.(0.0.0.0
> means switch,non-zero means router).
> In the scenario above,the switch A was selected to be a querier that means A
> performs as a router,
> so switch A should config its query source address to non-zero,and then Host A
> can recieve the traffic from B.
Even if in the described scenario switch A were configured to use a a non-zero source
address to become a router, so that switch B would mark the port
to switch A as a multicast router port, switch A would still loose
in the querier election right now, as 0.0.0.0 is lower (RFC3376, RFC2236). So switch
B would then become the selected querier with its 0.0.0.0 source
and switch A would become silent even though it had a non-zero
source address.
And then we would have the same issue again, only swapped between
host+switch A and host+switch B.
Would you agree, does that make sense?
Regards, Linus
[*]: Looking at br_ip4_multicast_select_querier():
If previously selected querier were 0.0.0.0, it would accept any
source as a new querier ("!br->ip4_querier.addr.u.ip4"). However,
if the previously selected querier were non-zero, a query with
0.0.0.0 would win, too
("ntohl(saddr) <= ntohl(br->ip4_querier.addr.u.ip4)").
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
To: Ying Xu <yinxu@redhat.com>
Cc: liuhangbin@gmail.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com,
bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net] net: bridge: remove ipv6 zero address check in mcast queries
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:15:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181217131550.GP1713@otheros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALRz_Py6ogxQsnR-5w-92At1z51M76bgMAeO9A9xqhCFy1pApA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi and thanks for your reply!
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:32:16AM +0800, Ying Xu wrote:
> I think the scenario mentioned above is abnormal.
Can we agree, that this scenario, if switch A and B were using the
current bridge code, has issues right now which it did
not have before that patch?
I also do not quite understand what you mean with "abnormal". Do
you think that it is unlikely to have two snooping switches and
general queries with a 0.0.0.0 source?
Note that with the current bridge code and according to RFC3376
and RFC2236, as soon as a query with a 0.0.0.0 source is sent somewhere
in the broadcast domain, it will become the selected querier [*].
> The source of query indicats that is a real router or only a switch.(0.0.0.0
> means switch,non-zero means router).
> In the scenario above,the switch A was selected to be a querier that means A
> performs as a router,
> so switch A should config its query source address to non-zero,and then Host A
> can recieve the traffic from B.
Even if in the described scenario switch A were configured to use a a non-zero source
address to become a router, so that switch B would mark the port
to switch A as a multicast router port, switch A would still loose
in the querier election right now, as 0.0.0.0 is lower (RFC3376, RFC2236). So switch
B would then become the selected querier with its 0.0.0.0 source
and switch A would become silent even though it had a non-zero
source address.
And then we would have the same issue again, only swapped between
host+switch A and host+switch B.
Would you agree, does that make sense?
Regards, Linus
[*]: Looking at br_ip4_multicast_select_querier():
If previously selected querier were 0.0.0.0, it would accept any
source as a new querier ("!br->ip4_querier.addr.u.ip4"). However,
if the previously selected querier were non-zero, a query with
0.0.0.0 would win, too
("ntohl(saddr) <= ntohl(br->ip4_querier.addr.u.ip4)").
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-17 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-27 0:50 [net:master 17/19] net//bridge/br_multicast.c:1432:32: error: 'union <anonymous>' has no member named 'ip6'; did you mean 'ip4'? kbuild test robot
2018-10-27 7:10 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2018-10-27 9:07 ` [Bridge] [PATCH net] net: bridge: remove ipv6 zero address check in mcast queries Nikolay Aleksandrov
2018-10-27 9:07 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2018-10-28 15:20 ` [Bridge] " Stephen Hemminger
2018-10-28 16:09 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2018-10-29 1:33 ` Hangbin Liu
2018-10-29 1:33 ` Hangbin Liu
2018-12-13 16:10 ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2018-12-13 16:10 ` Linus Lüssing
2018-12-14 2:32 ` Ying Xu
2018-12-14 2:32 ` Ying Xu
2018-12-17 13:15 ` Linus Lüssing [this message]
2018-12-17 13:15 ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2019-02-21 8:01 ` Hangbin Liu
2019-02-21 8:01 ` Hangbin Liu
2019-02-21 13:20 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2019-02-21 13:20 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2019-02-22 7:57 ` Hangbin Liu
2019-02-22 7:57 ` Hangbin Liu
2019-02-22 11:16 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2019-02-22 11:16 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2019-02-22 12:49 ` Hangbin Liu
2019-02-22 12:49 ` Hangbin Liu
2018-10-29 2:18 ` David Miller
2018-10-29 2:18 ` David Miller
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=20181217131550.GP1713@otheros \
--to=linus.luessing@c0d3.blue \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=liuhangbin@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=yinxu@redhat.com \
/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.