From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [RFC] bridge: allow passing link-local multicast Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:10:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20110818081019.4b9bb79e@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> References: <20110812154545.79d8313f@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> <20110815150501.3a6cc432@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ed Swierk , netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Lamparter , bridge@linux-foundation.org To: Nick Carter Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:41889 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755806Ab1HRPKK (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:10:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:06:19 +0100 Nick Carter wrote: > Why can't we use the 802.1D specified STP group address to identify ? > The existing code uses that address. > I know you said on another thread that there are people using other addresses. > Who are these people ? > Are they following any standard ? > What address / address range are they using ? The group address can be reprogrammed, and it is settable on other routing equipment. People do it to create spanning tree domains.