lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast
From
Date
On 2017-01-06 13:47, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 20:32 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
>> Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver
>> multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast
>> individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and
>> changing the multicast destination MAC to a unicast one accordingly.
>
> How does this compare and/or relate to the multicast-to-unicast feature
> we were going to add to the wifi stack, particularly mac80211? Do we
> perhaps not need that feature at all, if bridging will have it?
>
> I suppose that the feature there could apply also to locally generated
> traffic when the AP interface isn't in a bridge, but I think I could
> live with requiring the AP to be put into a bridge to achieve a similar
> configuration?
>
> Additionally, on an unrelated note, this seems to apply generically to
> all kinds of frames, losing information by replacing the address.
> Shouldn't it have similar limitations as the wifi stack feature has
> then, like only applying to ARP, IPv4, IPv6 and not general protocols?
>
> Also, it should probably come with the same caveat as we documented for
> the wifi feature:
>
> Note that this may break certain expectations of the receiver,
> such as the ability to drop unicast IP packets received within
> multicast L2 frames, or the ability to not send ICMP destination
> unreachable messages for packets received in L2 multicast (which
> is required, but the receiver can't tell the difference if this
> new option is enabled.)
>
>
> I'll hold off sending my tree in until we see that we really need both
> features, or decide that we want the wifi feature *instead* of the
> bridge feature.
The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast
stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of the
group. Can the mac80211 feature do the same?

- Felix

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-06 14:53    [W:0.873 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site