> > Exactly. My point is that this is breaking the expectation that > > hosts are actually able to drop such packets. > > [readding CCs I removed earlier] > > Ah! Thanks. I was worried about creating packetloss :D. Ah, well, no - at least not in this case. > Hm, for this other other way round, I think it does not apply for > the bridge multicast-to-unicast patch if I'm not misreading the > bridge code: > > For a packet with a link-layer multicast address but a unicast IP > destination, the bridge MDB lookup will fail. > (http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/net/bridge/br_multicast.c?v=4.8 > #L178 > returns NULL) > > Case A): No multicast router on port: > -> bridge, br_multicast_flood(), will drop the packet already > (no matter if multicast-to-unicast is enabled or not) > > Case B): Multicast router present on port: > -> The new patch does not apply multicast-to-unicast but just floods > packet unaltered > ("else { port = rport; addr = NULL; }" branch) Ah, interesting. This is different then - the mac80211 code is not L3 aware at all. johannes
