[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130210153230.GA21377@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:32:30 +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.
I was looking at getpeername et. al. where we should report the scope
back to the user. A common pattern is:
if (ipv6_addr_type(&sin->sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL)
sin->sin6_scope_id = IP6CB(skb)->iif;
I propose to introduce something like 'bool ipv6_addr_intf_scoped(in6_addr)'
and let it check for ll addresses and interface scoped addresses.
--
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