[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140902141620.2da1f6aa@urahara>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:16:20 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:22:27 +0200
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
> + /* RFC 1122 3.3.6:
> + *
> + * When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer broadcast address,
> + * the IP destination address MUST be a legal IP broadcast or IP
> + * multicast address.
> + *
> + * A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via
> + * a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify
> + * an IP multicast or broadcast destination address.
> + *
> + * We also do this for link-layer multicast.
> + */
> + if ((skb->pkt_type == PACKET_BROADCAST ||
> + skb->pkt_type == PACKET_MULTICAST) &&
> + res.type != RTN_BROADCAST)
> + goto e_inval;
> +
I think you need to all multicast packet but not broadcast.
The RFC does not specify that you should drop link-layer multicast to a unicast
address. There are several clustering products use that.
--
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