netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ying Xu <yinxu@redhat.com>
To: linus.luessing@c0d3.blue
Cc: nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	liuhangbin@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: bridge: remove ipv6 zero address check in mcast queries
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:32:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALRz_Py6ogxQsnR-5w-92At1z51M76bgMAeO9A9xqhCFy1pApA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181213161027.GC1713@otheros>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3040 bytes --]

 I think the scenario mentioned above is abnormal.
According to rfc 4541, multicast router port means this port is attached to
a real router.

The source of query indicats that is a real router or only a
switch.(0.0.0.0 means switch,non-zero means router).
In the scenario above,the switch A was selected to be a querier that means
A performs as a router,
so switch A should config its query source address to non-zero,and then
Host A can recieve the traffic from B.

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:10 AM Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
wrote:

> Even though RFC4541 recommends this, I'm not quite sure whether
> this works... even for IGMP.
>
> I think this would lead to multicast packet loss in a scenario
> like this:
>
> ----------
>
>      [Switch A] -------------- [Switch B]
>         /                          /
>        /                          /
>       /                          /
>  (Host A)                   (Host B)
>
>
> - Snooping Switches: Switch A + Switch B
> - Selected Querier: Switch A, with 0.0.0.0 query source
> - Multicast Listener: Host A
> - Multicast Data Sender: Host B
>
> 1) Host A sends IGMP report to Switch A
> 2) Switch A refrains from forwarding it to Switch B
>    (reports are only forwarded to multicast routers according to
>     RFC4541)
>    => Switch B does not learn about listeners on Host A
>
> Now, with this patch and recommendation in RFC4541 to not add queries
> with a 0.0.0.0 source address to the multicast router port list:
>
> 3) Host B sends multicast data to Switch B
>    => Switch B does not forward it to Switch A as it neither
>       detected a multicast listener nor multicast router on
>       the according port.
>    => Host A does not receive the multicast data it signed up for
>
> (Or with colors:
>
> https://metameute.de/~tux/linux/bridge/query-zero-source-no-mcrouter-port.png
> )
>
> ----------
>
> Alternatively we would need to ignore 0.0.0.0 for the querier
> election and "querier present" detection. And by that disable
> multicast snooping if there are no queries from a non-zero source
> address.
>
> But I'm a little hesitant whether ignoring is a reliable way as
> IGMPv3 (RFC3376) and IGMPv2 (RFC2236) make no such restrictions
> regarding the query source address.
>
> With no such restrictions according to RFC3376/RFC2236 a 0.0.0.0
> would always win the querier election. Meaning any potential
> querier with a non-zero source address would remain silent.
> Meaning we would always disable multicast snooping then?
>
>
> Adding queriers with a 0.0.0.0 source address to the multicast
> router list, too, seems like a less harmful way then disabling multicast
> snooping completely?
>
> ----------
>
> However, one of the two options seems to be necessary. Either
> reverting the patch for the IGMP part, too. Or Ignoring 0.0.0.0
> sources for querier eletcion and presence detection.
>
> The current state seems broken to me unless I'm missing something.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3644 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2018-12-14  2:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-27  0:50 [net:master 17/19] net//bridge/br_multicast.c:1432:32: error: 'union <anonymous>' has no member named 'ip6'; did you mean 'ip4'? kbuild test robot
2018-10-27  7:10 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2018-10-27  9:07   ` [PATCH net] net: bridge: remove ipv6 zero address check in mcast queries Nikolay Aleksandrov
2018-10-28 15:20     ` [Bridge] " Stephen Hemminger
2018-10-28 16:09       ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2018-10-29  1:33     ` Hangbin Liu
2018-12-13 16:10       ` [Bridge] " Linus Lüssing
2018-12-14  2:32         ` Ying Xu [this message]
2018-12-17 13:15           ` Linus Lüssing
2019-02-21  8:01         ` Hangbin Liu
2019-02-21 13:20           ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2019-02-22  7:57             ` Hangbin Liu
2019-02-22 11:16               ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2019-02-22 12:49                 ` Hangbin Liu
2018-10-29  2:18     ` David Miller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CALRz_Py6ogxQsnR-5w-92At1z51M76bgMAeO9A9xqhCFy1pApA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=yinxu@redhat.com \
    --cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linus.luessing@c0d3.blue \
    --cc=liuhangbin@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com \
    --cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).