Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 01:44:38AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: >> We should queue fragments for the same link-local address on >> different interfaces (e.g. fe80::1%eth0 and fe80::1%eth1) to the >> different queue, because of nature of addressing architecture. >> >> Similarly, we should queue fragments for multicast on different >> interface to the different queue. This is okay because >> application joins group on speicific interface, and multicast >> traffic is expected only on that interface. >> >> CC: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@xxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I just found this patch while cleaning up my tree. I don't know its state > (netdev patchworks says RFC and netfilter patchworks still lists it as > new). However, I also do think that the per interface matching would be > the right thing to do for multicast|linklocal fragments. Perhaps this patch > should be resend? Will do. > Yoshifuji, do you think we should also implement RFC 3168 5.3 ECN > fragmentation protection in reassembly.c? I think it should be > straightforward because it is already implemented for ipv4 and the > relevant bits just need to be moved to inet_fragment.c and become a bit > more generalized. OK. --yoshfuji -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
