[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170109124231.GA9086@otheros>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:42:31 +0100
From: Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
Michael Braun <michael-dev@...i-braun.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
>
> > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211
> > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet
> > header?
>
> But it does, for example RFC 1122 states:
>
> When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address,
> the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP
> multicast address.
>
> A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via
> a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify
> an IP multicast or broadcast destination address.
This example is the other way round. It specifies how the IP
destination should look like in case of link-layer broadcast. Not
how the link-layer destination should look like in case of a
multicast/broadcast IP destination.
Any other examples?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists