[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100914.142418.149835514.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dlstevens@...ibm.com
Cc: shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 18212] New: force_igmp_version ignored when a IGMPv3
query received (+1 line patch)
From: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:20:40 -0700
> netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org wrote on 09/10/2010 09:19:36 AM:
>
>>
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18212
>>
>> Summary: force_igmp_version ignored when a IGMPv3 query
>> received (+1 line patch)
>
>>
>> Created an attachment (id=29512)
>> --> (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=29512)
>> fix force_igmp_version v3 query problem
>>
>> After all these years, it turns out that the
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/force_igmp_version
>> parameter isn't fully implemented.
>
> I don't think it's correct to send a v2 response to a v3
> query in any case. The question for answering v3 queries was
> whether to answer them with a v3 report, or to drop them and
> ignore them when force_igmp_version==2. I chose to respond,
> but I can see the case for dropping it too. I don't agree that
> a v3 query should be answered with a v2 resport (a real v2
> host would drop it).
Do you have an alternative patch to suggest?
--
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