netdev - Re: GVRP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <483C482A.3050003@trash.net>
Date:	Tue, 27 May 2008 19:43:06 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
CC:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GVRP

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> I've written an applicant-only GVRP implementation for the kernel
>> some time ago (for those not familiar: it dynamically registers
>> VLANs with switches. Applicant-only means its only the "client-side")
>> and I'm wondering whether I should merge it. It should be quite
>> easy to move it to userspace, OTOH I think it would be nice to
>> have the client-side support for this without having to install
>> additional daemons. But since this is not a really strong argument,
>> I'd like to hear if anyone has an opinion about this.
>>
>> The GVRP implementation sits on top of an GARP implementation,
>> which could also support GMRP for multicast address registrations.
>>
>> I'm not including the patch yet because it would need to be
>> split up and needs some minor cleanups, just for orientation, the
>> GARP implementation is about 600 lines of simple code, the GVRP
>> implementation something like 60 lines of even simpler code.
> 
> If it's simple, why not?
> 
> But-- when I was writing RFC 5110 one of the things we evaluated was 
> whether an another application of GARP, GMRP, could be used.
> 
> We asked IEEE about this and they said that GARP and GMRP are obsolete, 
> below is the most important part of RFC 5110 with this respect:
> 
>    IEEE 802.1D-2004 specification describes Generic Attribute
>    Registration Protocol (GARP), and GARP Multicast Registration
>    Protocol (GMRP) [GMRP] is a link-layer multicast group application of
>    GARP that notifies switches about MAC multicast group memberships.
>    If GMRP is used in conjunction with IP multicast, then the GMRP
>    registration function would become associated with an IGMP "join".
>    However, this GMRP-IGMP association is beyond the scope of GMRP.
>    GMRP requires support at the host stack and it has not been widely
>    implemented.  Further, IEEE 802.1 considers GARP and GMRP obsolete
>    being replaced by Multiple Registration Protocol (MRP) and Multicast
>    Multiple Registration Protocol (MMRP) that are being specified in
>    IEEE 802.1ak [802.1ak].  MMRP is expected to be mainly used between
>    bridges.  Some further information about GARP/GMRP is also available
>    in Appendix B of [RFC3488].


Thanks for the pointer, I'll try to read up on this tommorrow.
If GARP is considered obsolete, I guess there's no point in
merging GVRP.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html