From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:42:31 +0100 From: Linus =?utf-8?Q?L=C3=BCssing?= Message-ID: <20170109124231.GA9086@otheros> References: <20170102193214.31723-1-linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> <1483706872.4089.8.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20170107151530.GG3134@otheros> <1483949149.17582.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1483949149.17582.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Johannes Berg Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Braun , "David S . Miller" , Felix Fietkau 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?