[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1483949149.17582.1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 09:05:49 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
Michael Braun <michael-dev@...i-braun.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast
On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211
> multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet
> header?
But it does, for example RFC 1122 states:
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.
You can probably find other examples too.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists