[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130209230806.GA16640@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:08:06 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Cc: Erik Hugne <erik.hugne@...csson.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...e.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] interface-local multicast escapes the local node
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:12:46PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:54:15PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:24:14AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> >>> NAK. I think we should select routes via loopback device here.
> >>
> >> Will try your idea, thanks.
> >
> > Does this patch look reasonable? Btw. i am pleased to see this kind of
> > things work out as expected most of the time (addrtype checking etc. all
> > in place). :)
> >
>
> Well, I rethink of what "interface-local" means.
>
> It seems applications will join ff01::/16%eth0 instead of ff01::/16%lo.
> If so, your original patch seems better. My bad, sorry.
No problem, will do. I have not checked carefully, but this would mean we have
to do changes to glibc to have a correct behaving getaddrinfo?
> Would you update original one, with minor modification that defers
> kfree_skb() after incrementing MIB, please?
Yes. Will send the patch tomorrow at the latest.
>
> If you think we should join ff01::{1,2} by default, you can send another
> patch for it. (BTW, why don't we join ff05::2, then? ;-))
Ok, I'll split it up. You are right about ff05::2, seems like the right thing
to do, somehow. I hope this won't impact any multicast routing daemons.
Thanks,
Hannes
--
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