From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: implement multicast fast leave Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:55:24 +0800 Message-ID: <1354614924.15167.9.camel@cr0> References: <1354545363-11953-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <20121203075316.0b1da39d@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20121204013838.GA31329@gondor.apana.org.au> <1354604692.15167.7.camel@cr0> <20121204070732.GA32550@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" To: Herbert Xu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121204070732.GA32550@gondor.apana.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 15:07 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 03:04:52PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > > > > Per-port sounds better than per-bridge. And I will make it enabled by > > default. > > IMHO the default should be off. Suddenly losing your subscription > because someone else on the same port unsubscribed is a lot more > annoying than getting a few minutes of unwanted multicast data. > You are right, this is why it should only be used when there is one client behind the port. Thanks!