Hi and thanks for your reply!
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:32:16AM +0800, Ying Xu wrote:
> I think the scenario mentioned above is abnormal.
Can we agree, that this scenario, if switch A and B were using the
current bridge code, has issues right now which it did
not have before that patch?
I also do not quite understand what you mean with "abnormal". Do
you think that it is unlikely to have two snooping switches and
general queries with a 0.0.0.0 source?
Note that with the current bridge code and according to RFC3376
and RFC2236, as soon as a query with a 0.0.0.0 source is sent somewhere
in the broadcast domain, it will become the selected querier [*].
> The source of query indicats that is a real router or only a switch.(0.0.0.0
> means switch,non-zero means router).
> In the scenario above,the switch A was selected to be a querier that means A
> performs as a router,
> so switch A should config its query source address to non-zero,and then Host A
> can recieve the traffic from B.
Even if in the described scenario switch A were configured to use a a non-zero source
address to become a router, so that switch B would mark the port
to switch A as a multicast router port, switch A would still loose
in the querier election right now, as 0.0.0.0 is lower (RFC3376, RFC2236). So switch
B would then become the selected querier with its 0.0.0.0 source
and switch A would become silent even though it had a non-zero
source address.
And then we would have the same issue again, only swapped between
host+switch A and host+switch B.
Would you agree, does that make sense?
Regards, Linus
[*]: Looking at br_ip4_multicast_select_querier():
If previously selected querier were 0.0.0.0, it would accept any
source as a new querier ("!br->ip4_querier.addr.u.ip4"). However,
if the previously selected querier were non-zero, a query with
0.0.0.0 would win, too
("ntohl(saddr) <= ntohl(br->ip4_querier.addr.u.ip4)").
