From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next (V2, RESENT)] ipv6: Queue fragments per interface for multicast/link-local addresses. Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:50:25 +0900 Message-ID: <51451351.50508@linux-ipv6.org> References: <511F1E03.9010205@linux-ipv6.org> <511FB776.8000901@linux-ipv6.org> <20130316074745.GC24041@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki To: netdev , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130316074745.GC24041@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 >> 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? 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