From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next (V2, RESENT)] ipv6: Queue fragments per interface for multicast/link-local addresses. Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:47:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20130316074745.GC24041@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <511F1E03.9010205@linux-ipv6.org> <511FB776.8000901@linux-ipv6.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: netdev , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <511FB776.8000901@linux-ipv6.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 > CC: Vlad Yasevich > CC: Eric Dumazet > Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki 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? 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. Thanks, Hannes