From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next (V2)] ipv6: Queue fragments per interface for multicast/link-local addresses. Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:39:29 +0900 Message-ID: <511F6FF1.9000004@linux-ipv6.org> References: <511F1E03.9010205@linux-ipv6.org> <1360995918.19353.56.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, Ben Greear , Vlad Yasevich , YOSHIFUJI Hideaki To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from 94.43.138.210.xn.2iij.net ([210.138.43.94]:39824 "EHLO mail.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753066Ab3BPLja (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2013 06:39:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1360995918.19353.56.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 14:49 +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 would definitely ask advice from Patrick & Pablo on this patch. > > If a router uses several links in aggregation (but no bonding dev), we > might break fragmentation/reassembly. Could you elaborate, please? The patch does not compare incoming interface if address is non-link-local unicast address. --yoshfuji