Re: [RFC PATCH net-next (V2, RESENT)] ipv6: Queue fragments per interface for multicast/link-local addresses.

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>]

Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 01:44:38AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
>> We should queue fragments for the same link-local address on
>> different interfaces (e.g. fe80::1%eth0 and fe80::1%eth1) to the
>> different queue, because of nature of addressing architecture.
>>
>> Similarly, we should queue fragments for multicast on different
>> interface to the different queue.  This is okay because
>> application joins group on speicific interface, and multicast
>> traffic is expected only on that interface.
>>
>> CC: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
>> CC: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@redhat.com>
>> CC: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
> 
> I just found this patch while cleaning up my tree. I don't know its state
> (netdev patchworks says RFC and netfilter patchworks still lists it as
> new). However, I also do think that the per interface matching would be
> the right thing to do for multicast|linklocal fragments. Perhaps this patch
> should be resend?

Will do.

> Yoshifuji, do you think we should also implement RFC 3168 5.3 ECN
> fragmentation protection in reassembly.c? I think it should be
> straightforward because it is already implemented for ipv4 and the
> relevant bits just need to be moved to inet_fragment.c and become a bit
> more generalized.

OK.

--yoshfuji