https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193246
John Baldwin <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Needs Triage |In Discussion CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #8 from John Baldwin <[email protected]> --- It seems to be a non-trivial amount of work. From bms@ on IRC: <quote> There's no hard and fast reasons why it couldn't be done. The code as it stands will reject that as being an API mixup (you want v4 memberships, use the v4 APIs). The tension points are the Layer 4 ingress filtering for SSM, and actually calling Layer 2 in the right way. The nasty thing about IP6-mapped is that you need to track the memberships in v6 terms, but hand-off all the work to the v4 routines to do the right thing. The easiest way to go about doing it is to deal with the ASM case first, and just punch a hole in ingress filtering if someone tries to use SSM (which is what the stack has to do anyway). I'm not going to stick around to see what happens, though. ;-) </quote> I think what this means is that in_mcast6.c is very much tied to doing MLDv6 (or whatever the v6 equivalent of IGMP is), but for these groups, you need to be somehow calling into in_mcast.c to do IGMP instead. However, I'm not sure at what level in_mcast6.c needs to call into in_mcast.c myself. I do think Bruce is your best bet for someone to ask. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
