On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:47:52PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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? (should all three be answered with Michael's and my reply to Michael's mail, I think) > > 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.) Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211 multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet header?
