On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:52:45 +0100
Nick Carter <ncarter100@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18 August 2011 16:10, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:06:19 +0100
> > Nick Carter <ncarter100@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Why can't we use the 802.1D specified STP group address to identify ?
> >> The existing code uses that address.
> >> I know you said on another thread that there are people using other addresses.
> >> Who are these people ?
> >> Are they following any standard ?
> >> What address / address range are they using ?
> >
> > The group address can be reprogrammed, and it is settable on other
> > routing equipment. People do it to create spanning tree domains.
> >
> But before the new
> + if (!is_stp_bpdu(skb) && br_forward_link_local)
> check, we have already checked
> if (unlikely(is_link_local(dest))) {
> So the frame must have a link local destination. If the reprogrammed
> group address is outside of the link local range then the new code in
> this patch will never be hit. If the reprogrammed group address is in
> the link local range then i'd suggest my previous group_fwd_mask patch
> is cleaner and more flexible.
The problem is that the group_fwd_mask is specific to the address
not the protocol.
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
