From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792518851; b=wIyHZTnnGCPIgK4TEDvyPadFmAIyXkgVFG0A2uUxhCjjf72Ma0WIlOU3ANd9V4otBf9d kLBhAzDzRObAsoit5wr+eyEzHYctEIVev24GB6+XxMD6m6UWBf6OKwUq11awHf53f8d+w wnng6OPIpdi1ORLFBL037H7k+j/zirIIUTLMGcESyjEcT+monctdMNxP0NecmU1LhFnh3 kvw21kJGzGIq88NO+d7ckHJr2y/YQk1o/bGCXTa/ZCniSfcNsZvAY1OQk9b012qoWwQ7U Gqm345GOn+vufY3tTW+wa4K+JdAjUBQ0wsNnyAFHu3wHJ4BjRCfGVhfV/f/OY7/jXfw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792518851; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=dQfMDuwqb54plXCUrcom+x2Un56yiP19qBWF69WSeCY=; b=s3jgBOvv2b+/Zx7L2lZYUAfg+X0HAc0YAdKEgphPLlcnBF7gBQF+Kh2nkED5EJp0aZCC kCI7STBfrkXjNY+m159Kl+kv8Xks0ZpCG7XKsXbkBPxscvb447va9mjqMmVnHffLO9ElG AzcT/8teHzYFA69CBG/qKYSV4qDjEy0eanZo1BqW+cWayN+Wfs0UwZovukcZ7bxb134f1 N+WMnr8s480HBmDgTOeeqxv41fSyn2Ng/aIPFcn3f4zw0f+naF1X+SEYfQM3fVFbenQuh TdZ0aRh/I0HhPxUseIEjCU9SXJu/VZKpApEZrk7dYVdGMRs2FVppU6YzRoijva6nIIA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=CH2NLpqF; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 383CE606A319; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 17:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=CH2NLpqF Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B70FA1F000C9; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 17:54:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792518851; bh=dQfMDuwqb54plXCUrcom+x2Un56yiP19qBWF69WSeCY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=CH2NLpqFzgnQAbVp8xpa0ohibW7oVpwH36dGs3Qk8BXoI84rYxuX4QxuIVaOZddlK rsDuY6aWz/S3UeGKSYrDpN/2ZjeLDUl/80Z8Gwcd289mEwwBwZQkgR2ZzSW/qwrybr vS1gnZl9WVrTDdvq7odvjRy77nzFW0Bqfnm2J/P5Ba1VLeD1VAOcgcQlWpILsOG5Qr rXhmuKyYdptCaScjYZTpy3zRcEvcM247S29QUB2WQykaWcKGY/rXpbVK7iB+AZrjtm LHRbNZ1TASjfCF4tHxM2WTUG3c4fLDa7z59qdGD95TZD700G0Bl/8YxmMkHZkYMIT2 eqG5LmrYtWXyw== Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 10:54:10 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Omar Ramadan Cc: Taehee Yoo , Andrew Lunn , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Shuah Khan , Simon Horman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] amt: add an IPv6 outer transport Message-ID: <20261020105410.7dccf739@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20261009122426.551178-1-omar@blockcast.net> <20261019162817.0855e1bb@kernel.org> X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:45:34 +0300 Omar Ramadan wrote: > Yes. We currently use the existing IPv4 AMT relay and gateway > implementation in a multicast delivery network (TreeDN > ). > Gateways on access networks send IGMP/MLD membership state through an AMT > relay to reach downstream receivers. The IPv6 outer transport work is > motivated by gateways whose access networks are IPv6-only; the inner > multicast family remains independent of the outer transport. Interesting, thanks for the context! > My experience with the existing code is from operating and exercising this > path, including reproducing the lifetime, authentication, teardown, and > input-validation issues addressed by the net series. I > agree that the patch stream exposed bugs in the existing implementation, > and the reviews have helped separate those fixes from the IPv6 transport > work. I=E2=80=99ll wait for net-next to reopen, then repost the IPv6 seri= es with > the net fixes as its prerequisite.