On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:31:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:43:55PM +0100, Joerg Dorchain wrote: > > Addendum: > > > > With the nopeer option removed from the default restrict statement, > > multicast works as expected. > > So this was just a configuration error?
Not solely. The multicast socket was not open with eth0. > > > The open question for me now is, why is there a difference between using > > eth0 directly and br0? > > I have no idea, but I assume this is a kernel problem? Hm, not necessarily. Something behaves different with eth0 and br0. I'll try to dig into this more deeply. But as it works-for-me-now(tm), my boss will most likely adjust my priority list. Bye, Joerg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature