[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:17:35 -0700
From: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To: RĂ©mi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@...phalempin.com>
Cc: Bernhard Schmidt <berni@...kenwald.de>,
Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [IPv6] "sendmsg: invalid argument" to multicast group after some time
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org wrote on 09/08/2008 11:52:05 PM:
>
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 02:38:53 +0200, Bernhard Schmidt
<berni@...kenwald.de>
>
> wrote:
>
> > ff00::/8 dev teredo metric 256 mtu 1280 advmss 1220 hoplimit
4294967295
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> Uho... that interface is not multicast-capable. Not sure how the kernel
>
> handles the conflicting routes.
Multicast programs shouldn't rely on the routing
table at all, IMAO. Unicast routing has nothing at all
to do with multicast routing, where a single address
means copying and forwarding to multiple different
segments, and the address has nothing at all to do with
the routing topology.
That's why the scope_id should be set (and to
the proper index for eth0), but I think either strace
is lying to us here or they're using SO_BINDTODEVICE
or IP_MULTICAST_IF.
But when it's breaking, I imagine it is ending
up on the wrong interface and thus the EINVAL... I
just don't see how some addresses still work while
others fail at the same time. :-)
+-DLS
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists