[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF8CC7A8E7.DA3B059E-ON85257A8C.004C258C-85257A8C.004DCE49@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:09:51 -0400
From: David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: chris2553@...glemail.com, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, gpiez@....de,
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] udp: increment UDP_MIB_NOPORTS in mcast receive
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote on 10/03/2012 09:15:51 AM:
> So when a host receives an UDP datagram but there was no application
> at the destination port we should increment udpNoPorts, and its not
> an error but just a fact.
Of course. I think our difference is on the definition of
"receives".
I don't think a packet delivered locally due to promiscuous mode,
broadcast
or an imperfect multicast address filter match is a host UDP datagram
receive.
These packets really shouldn't be delivered to UDP at all; they are not
addressed to this host (at least the non-broadcast, no-membership ones).
A unicast UDP packet that doesn't match a local IP address does
not
increment this counter. A promiscuous mode multicast delivery is no
different,
except that the destination alone doesn't tell us if it is for us.
I think counting these will primarily lead to administrators
seeing
non-zero drops and wasting their time trying to track them down.
+-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