From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A64C43381 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 08:05:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7654222D7 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 08:05:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cumulusnetworks.com header.i=@cumulusnetworks.com header.b="JXGc2Ppg" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729684AbfBPIFo (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2019 03:05:44 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com ([209.85.221.66]:34574 "EHLO mail-wr1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727970AbfBPIFo (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2019 03:05:44 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id f14so12707105wrg.1 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 00:05:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cumulusnetworks.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VAblOlCOw8x6xkW4kb5Hq3Ac1SfbMU7uJgu37caTqB8=; b=JXGc2PpgE+itgk+0y9ZYbUFj1mupkPIouuwLYtQyVIk1eT84lnL6wEh4rLY9vbG60L NYYeFokG9scKbefhGhRdLa5ZCUJGlcAni0KODZjiHbYWN2mBtp7/sxR7hMqSulLzKdm/ SdbTr1F8Q6JQB4c3/vr4cD7YHZ5ZOffG4q8pI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VAblOlCOw8x6xkW4kb5Hq3Ac1SfbMU7uJgu37caTqB8=; b=p1ISF3ckPuXfr+iuKSrV6EtfdesbO2UWcGHPp9eOYpPHt9ca0QJSKGXF5X1Wl9OUar HEyiL884wHTOnFOLf2Vj9Ijl+JYFFB/bCUsQnmDsTk5ramnd7UOedrigqmiW5jLVCFr+ XPGq++2KoUvg4JbmhjMJF9nzbCU4xsVIhQ3+Trjm1RWwtsjtv7jExFvvZp+ne3l+dDb9 o6zV4HUvM3aXuuDPWf82gHDKulTMkLaBC4+Bh0KFlOvId8pc2XNHHo29paeOSWS3Uhg7 yjkLtxf4t3TT8kxdjEU1tGJVAaQNYaNxU0cpQmZgpipaOV7pcM1uA1N4N6KZpaYj+r+4 LfBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZKNTWTf7w8gZ6/K2DRzZ/awTa4hq4vMiFJzlk97ks2lNLzVAtt l2ApvPwEDAzl9tmn3iedqsybhSSmeic= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ia5EhHQluW0XDA2RKXpKpAqwSi0v6LjXsyPVplSE0tiPyJSCYCcHS+TtreNYGD2QnCe0Ctylw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f7c9:: with SMTP id a9mr10144967wrq.39.1550304342241; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 00:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.107] (79-100-158-105.ip.btc-net.bg. [79.100.158.105]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o12sm25931719wre.0.2019.02.16.00.05.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Feb 2019 00:05:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] net: bridge: don't flood known multicast traffic when snooping is enabled To: =?UTF-8?Q?Linus_L=c3=bcssing?= Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, wkok@cumulusnetworks.com, anuradhak@cumulusnetworks.com, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, stephen@networkplumber.org References: <20190215130427.29824-1-nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com> <20190215171332.GA1472@otheros> From: Nikolay Aleksandrov Message-ID: <479a1acf-c7f3-4e6f-4246-e1583e98d356@cumulusnetworks.com> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:05:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190215171332.GA1472@otheros> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 15/02/2019 19:13, Linus Lüssing wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: >> Every user would expect to have traffic forwarded only to the configured >> mdb destination when snooping is enabled, instead now to get that one >> needs to enable both snooping and querier. Enabling querier on all >> switches could be problematic and is not a good solution, > > There is no need to set the querier on all snooping switches. > br_multicast_querier_exists() checks if a querier exists on the > link in general, not if this particular host/bridge is a querier. > We need a generic solution for the case of existing mdst and no querier. More below. > >> for example as summarized by our multicast experts: >> "every switch would send an IGMP query > > What? RFC3810, section 7.1 says: > > "If it is the case, a querier election mechanism (described in > section 7.6.2) is used to elect a single multicast router to be > in Querier state. [...] Nevertheless, it is only the [elected] Querier > that sends periodical or triggered query messages on the subnet." > >> for any random multicast traffic it >> received across the entire domain and it would send it forever as long as a >> host exists wanting that stream even if it has no downstream/directly >> connected receivers" > This was taken out of context and it's my bad, I think everyone is aware of the election process, please nevermind the above statement. [snip]> > > Have you done some tests with this change yet, Nikolay? > You've raised good questions, IPv6 indeed needs more work - we'll have to flood link-local packets etc. but I wanted to have a discussion about no querier/existing mdst. To simplify we can modify the patch and have traffic forwarded to the proper ports when an mdst exists and there is no querier for both unsolicited report and user-added entry. We can keep the current behaviour for unknown traffic with and without querier. This would align it closer to what other vendors currently do as well IIRC. What do you think ? Thanks, Nik