From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:59:14 +0900 Message-ID: <540675F2.1030308@miraclelinux.com> References: <1408641747-22199-1-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20140821_192515_304437_37E734D5) <1408642331.4388.2.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1409125114.11976.14.camel@localhost> <1409130313.2505.3.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1409133238.26515.13.camel@localhost> <1409650573.1808.11.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki To: Johannes Berg , Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: Received: from exprod7og112.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.177]:42680 "HELO exprod7og112.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753271AbaICB7S (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2014 21:59:18 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id lj1so16359864pab.0 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:59:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1409650573.1808.11.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg wrote: > As long as IPv6 doesn't mandate it in the RFCs I'm not really sure we > should just drop it, even if we think it won't cause any problems? > > CLUSTERIP seems like a special configuration, but I'm not sure it can be > detected and automatically allowed? Please do not "drop" L2 multicast/broadcast for L3 unicast and vice versa, unless it is explicitly specified by RFC. Upper-layer needs to cope eith situation of seeing packets with "incorrect" L2 header anyway (e.g., in promiscous mode). I do not see much advantage to drop them here. -- Hideaki Yoshifuji Technical Division, MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION