netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: 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: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:47:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1483706872.4089.8.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170102193214.31723-1-linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> (sfid-20170102_204412_831542_1DC6188A)

On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 20:32 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver
> multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast
> individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and
> changing the multicast destination MAC to a unicast one accordingly.

How does this compare and/or relate to the multicast-to-unicast feature
we were going to add to the wifi stack, particularly mac80211? Do we
perhaps not need that feature at all, if bridging will have it?

I suppose that the feature there could apply also to locally generated
traffic when the AP interface isn't in a bridge, but I think I could
live with requiring the AP to be put into a bridge to achieve a similar
configuration?

Additionally, on an unrelated note, this seems to apply generically to
all kinds of frames, losing information by replacing the address.
Shouldn't it have similar limitations as the wifi stack feature has
then, like only applying to ARP, IPv4, IPv6 and not general protocols?

Also, it should probably come with the same caveat as we documented for
the wifi feature:

    Note that this may break certain expectations of the receiver,
    such as the ability to drop unicast IP packets received within
    multicast L2 frames, or the ability to not send ICMP destination
    unreachable messages for packets received in L2 multicast (which
    is required, but the receiver can't tell the difference if this
    new option is enabled.)


I'll hold off sending my tree in until we see that we really need both
features, or decide that we want the wifi feature *instead* of the
bridge feature.

johannes

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-01-06 12:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-02 19:32 [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Linus Lüssing
2017-01-03 11:58 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov via Bridge
2017-01-03 13:15 ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-06 12:47 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2017-01-06 13:52   ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-06 13:54     ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-06 13:54       ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-07 10:32       ` M. Braun
2017-01-07 14:55         ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09  8:08           ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 11:44             ` M. Braun
2017-01-09 12:15               ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 15:25                 ` michael-dev
2017-01-09 15:47                   ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 21:23               ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 21:30                 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-10  4:18                   ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-10 10:56                     ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-10 17:17                       ` Dave Taht
2017-01-10 17:23                         ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-10 18:24                           ` Dave Taht
2017-01-10 21:27                       ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-11 11:26                         ` IgorMitsyanko
2017-01-11 11:30                           ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-11 12:15                             ` IgorMitsyanko
2017-01-11 12:21                               ` Felix Fietkau
2017-01-07 15:15   ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09  8:05     ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 12:42       ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-09 12:44         ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 23:12           ` Linus Lüssing
2017-01-11  9:17             ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-07  3:13 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-01-07 15:06   ` Linus Lüssing
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=1483706872.4089.8.camel@sipsolutions.net \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linus.luessing@c0d3.blue \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).