From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 09:05:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1483949149.17582.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <20170102193214.31723-1-linus.luessing@c0d3.blue> <1483706872.4089.8.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20170107151530.GG3134@otheros> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 To: Linus =?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FCssing?= Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170107151530.GG3134@otheros> 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 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. You can probably find other examples too. johannes