[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120424.170004.1811627706738841106.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: fbl@...hat.com
Cc: herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: restoring IP multicast addresses when restarting the interface.
From: Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:30:23 -0300
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:14:25 +1000
> Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:25:33PM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
>> >
>> > Although the new behavior seems nice and save some user space
>> > work, I think it was unintentional and likely to be a bug.
>> >
>> > What you guys think?
>>
>> Are you talking about multicast subscriptions on the interface?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I don't see why they should disappear when the interface goes
>> down and then comes back up since these ultimately come from
>> application sockets which continue to exist after a down/up.
>
> Yeah, but that's not how things used to work before, so my
> question is if the kernel should be responsible for keeping
> the subscription or the application.
>
> If the admin puts down the interface and remove the module,
> for instance, then the multicast subscription is gone.
> Should the application monitor for that then?
>
> David? Any thoughts?
David Stevens at IBM and Herbert at the current multicast
experts, so I will defer to them.
--
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