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 --]
next prev parent 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).