Re: igmp: Staggered igmp report intervals for unsolicited igmp reports

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:58:15PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > packets if it isn't ready quickly? A querier is what makes these
> > reliable, but for the start-up in particular, I think it'd be better
> > to not initiate the send on devices that have this problem until the
> > device is actually ready to send-- why not put the delay in the device
> > driver on initialization?
> 
> The device is ready. Its just the multicast group that has not been
> established yet.

In IB when the SA replies to a group join the group should be ready,
prior to that the device can't send into the group because it has no
MLID for the group.. If you have a MLID then the group is working.

Is the issue you are dropping IGMP packets because the 224.0.0.2 join
hasn't finished? Ideally you'd wait for the SA to reply before sending
a IGMP, but a simpler solution might just be to use the broadcast MLID
for packets addressed to a MGID that has not yet got a MLID. This
would bebe similar to the ethernet behaviour of flooding.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html