On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > I agree. We had similar ideas. However, the kernel does send igmp > > reports to the MC address not to 244.0.0.2. We would have to redirect at > > the IB layer until multicast via MLID becomes functional. We cannot tell > > when that will be the case. > > Sure, but Aleksey's patch is aimed at the case when the SM has not yet > replied, not for your problem with IGMPv2. If their is no MLID then > sending to the broadcast MLID is a better choice than hanging onto the > packets. I wonder if you could even send unicasts to the broadcast?
The problem that the SM has not yet replied is no different between the IGMP versions. If you get a confirmation but the MC group is not functional then packets go nowhere. > I still think the problem you have with IGMPv2 is best solved by > leaning on the gateway vendors to support IGMPv3 - which *does* send > all reports to 244.0.0.22 s/22/2 Certainly a solution for the igmp messages themselves but not for initial traffic or traffic send via sendonly join. _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
