Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-11 13:15, IgorMitsyanko wrote: > On 01/11/2017 02:30 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2017-01-11 12:26, IgorMitsyanko wrote: >>> On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: >>

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-11 13:15, IgorMitsyanko wrote: > On 01/11/2017 02:30 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2017-01-11 12:26, IgorMitsyanko wrote: >>> On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: >>

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 01/11/2017 02:30 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2017-01-11 12:26, IgorMitsyanko wrote: On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 01/11/2017 02:30 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2017-01-11 12:26, IgorMitsyanko wrote: On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-11 12:26, IgorMitsyanko wrote: > On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I wonder if MAC80211

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-11 12:26, IgorMitsyanko wrote: > On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I wonder if MAC80211

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge in this

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge in this

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

> > Exactly. My point is that this is breaking the expectation that > > hosts are actually able to drop such packets. > > [readding CCs I removed earlier] > > Ah! Thanks. I was worried about creating packetloss :D. Ah, well, no - at least not in this case. > Hm, for this other other way

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

> > Exactly. My point is that this is breaking the expectation that > > hosts are actually able to drop such packets. > > [readding CCs I removed earlier] > > Ah! Thanks. I was worried about creating packetloss :D. Ah, well, no - at least not in this case. > Hm, for this other other way

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> > I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge >> > in this environment. >> >> In the long term, yes.

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> > I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge >> > in this environment. >> >> In the long term, yes.

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2017-01-10 18:17, Dave Taht wrote: >> In the case of wifi I have 3 issues with this line of thought. >> >> multicast in wifi has generally supposed to be unreliable. This makes >> it reliable. reliability comes at a cost -

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2017-01-10 18:17, Dave Taht wrote: >> In the case of wifi I have 3 issues with this line of thought. >> >> multicast in wifi has generally supposed to be unreliable. This makes >> it reliable. reliability comes at a cost - >> >> multicast

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-10 18:17, Dave Taht wrote: > In the case of wifi I have 3 issues with this line of thought. > > multicast in wifi has generally supposed to be unreliable. This makes > it reliable. reliability comes at a cost - > > multicast is typically set at a fixed low rate today. unicast is >

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-10 18:17, Dave Taht wrote: > In the case of wifi I have 3 issues with this line of thought. > > multicast in wifi has generally supposed to be unreliable. This makes > it reliable. reliability comes at a cost - > > multicast is typically set at a fixed low rate today. unicast is >

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

In the case of wifi I have 3 issues with this line of thought. multicast in wifi has generally supposed to be unreliable. This makes it reliable. reliability comes at a cost - multicast is typically set at a fixed low rate today. unicast is retried at different rates until it succeeds - for

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

In the case of wifi I have 3 issues with this line of thought. multicast in wifi has generally supposed to be unreliable. This makes it reliable. reliability comes at a cost - multicast is typically set at a fixed low rate today. unicast is retried at different rates until it succeeds - for

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge > > in this environment. > > In the long term, yes. For now, not quite sure. There's no "for now" in

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge > > in this environment. > > In the long term, yes. For now, not quite sure. There's no "for now" in

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge > in this environment. In the long term, yes. For now, not quite sure. I personally like to go for simple solutions first :).

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge > in this environment. In the long term, yes. For now, not quite sure. I personally like to go for simple solutions first :).

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:42:46PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 22:33 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:44:03PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > > > >  A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is > > > > > received via > > > > >   

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:42:46PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 22:33 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:44:03PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > > > >  A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is > > > > > received via > > > > >   

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 22:23:45 +0100 Linus Lüssing wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:44:19PM +0100, M. Braun wrote: > > Am 09.01.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > Does it make sense to implement the two in separate layers though? > > > > > > Clearly, this

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 22:23:45 +0100 Linus Lüssing wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:44:19PM +0100, M. Braun wrote: > > Am 09.01.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > Does it make sense to implement the two in separate layers though? > > > > > > Clearly, this part needs to be implemented

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:44:19PM +0100, M. Braun wrote: > Am 09.01.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > Does it make sense to implement the two in separate layers though? > > > > Clearly, this part needs to be implemented in the bridge layer due to > > the snooping knowledge, but the code

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:44:19PM +0100, M. Braun wrote: > Am 09.01.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > Does it make sense to implement the two in separate layers though? > > > > Clearly, this part needs to be implemented in the bridge layer due to > > the snooping knowledge, but the code

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 16:25 +0100, michael-dev wrote: > Am 09.01.2017 13:15, schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > That is bridge fdb entries (need to) expire so the bridge might > > > "forget" a still-connected station not sending but only consuming > > > broadcast traffic. > > > > Ok, that I don't know.

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 16:25 +0100, michael-dev wrote: > Am 09.01.2017 13:15, schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > That is bridge fdb entries (need to) expire so the bridge might > > > "forget" a still-connected station not sending but only consuming > > > broadcast traffic. > > > > Ok, that I don't know.

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

Am 09.01.2017 13:15, schrieb Johannes Berg: That is bridge fdb entries (need to) expire so the bridge might "forget" a still-connected station not sending but only consuming broadcast traffic. Ok, that I don't know. Somehow if you address a unicast packet there the bridge has to make a

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

Am 09.01.2017 13:15, schrieb Johannes Berg: That is bridge fdb entries (need to) expire so the bridge might "forget" a still-connected station not sending but only consuming broadcast traffic. Ok, that I don't know. Somehow if you address a unicast packet there the bridge has to make a

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

> >  A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via > >  a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify > >  an IP multicast or broadcast destination address. > > This example is the other way round. It specifies how the IP > destination

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

> >  A host SHOULD silently discard a datagram that is received via > >  a link-layer broadcast (see Section 2.4) but does not specify > >  an IP multicast or broadcast destination address. > > This example is the other way round. It specifies how the IP > destination

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > > > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211 > > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet > > header? > > But it does, for

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > > > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211 > > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet > > header? > > But it does, for

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 12:44 +0100, M. Braun wrote: > Am 09.01.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > Does it make sense to implement the two in separate layers though? > > > > Clearly, this part needs to be implemented in the bridge layer due > > to > > the snooping knowledge, but the code is

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 12:44 +0100, M. Braun wrote: > Am 09.01.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > Does it make sense to implement the two in separate layers though? > > > > Clearly, this part needs to be implemented in the bridge layer due > > to > > the snooping knowledge, but the code is

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

Am 09.01.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Johannes Berg: > Does it make sense to implement the two in separate layers though? > > Clearly, this part needs to be implemented in the bridge layer due to > the snooping knowledge, but the code is very similar to what mac80211 > has now. Does the bridge always

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

Am 09.01.2017 um 09:08 schrieb Johannes Berg: > Does it make sense to implement the two in separate layers though? > > Clearly, this part needs to be implemented in the bridge layer due to > the snooping knowledge, but the code is very similar to what mac80211 > has now. Does the bridge always

RE: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

bridge@lists.linux- > foundation.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > wirel...@vger.kernel.org; Felix Fietkau > Objet : Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast > > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:32:14 +0100 > Linus Lüssing <linus.luess...@c0d3.blue> wrote: > > > This

RE: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

bridge@lists.linux- > foundation.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > wirel...@vger.kernel.org; Felix Fietkau > Objet : Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast > > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:32:14 +0100 > Linus Lüssing wrote: > > > This feature is intended for i

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 15:55 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:32:57AM +0100, M. Braun wrote: > > Am 06.01.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > > > > > The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the > > > > multicast > > > > stream is only transmitted to

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 15:55 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:32:57AM +0100, M. Braun wrote: > > Am 06.01.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > > > > > The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the > > > > multicast > > > > stream is only transmitted to

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211 > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet > header? But it does, for example RFC 1122 states:  When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 16:15 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > Actually, I do not quite understand that remark in the mac80211 > multicast-to-unicast patch. IP should not care about the ethernet > header? But it does, for example RFC 1122 states:  When a host sends a datagram to a link-layer

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:47:52PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > How does this compare and/or relate to the multicast-to-unicast feature > we were going to add to the wifi stack, particularly mac80211? Do we > perhaps not need that feature at all, if bridging will have it? > > I suppose that the

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:47:52PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > How does this compare and/or relate to the multicast-to-unicast feature > we were going to add to the wifi stack, particularly mac80211? Do we > perhaps not need that feature at all, if bridging will have it? > > I suppose that the

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 07:13:56PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:32:14 +0100 > Linus Lüssing wrote: > > > This feature is intended for interface types which have a more reliable > > and/or efficient way to deliver unicast packets than

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 07:13:56PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:32:14 +0100 > Linus Lüssing wrote: > > > This feature is intended for interface types which have a more reliable > > and/or efficient way to deliver unicast packets than broadcast ones > > (e.g. wifi). >

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:32:57AM +0100, M. Braun wrote: > Am 06.01.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > >> The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast > >> stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of > >> the group. Can the mac80211 feature

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:32:57AM +0100, M. Braun wrote: > Am 06.01.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > >> The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast > >> stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of > >> the group. Can the mac80211 feature

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

Am 06.01.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Johannes Berg: > >> The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast >> stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of >> the group. Can the mac80211 feature do the same? > > No, it'll convert the packet for all clients that

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

Am 06.01.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Johannes Berg: > >> The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast >> stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of >> the group. Can the mac80211 feature do the same? > > No, it'll convert the packet for all clients that

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:32:14 +0100 Linus Lüssing wrote: > This feature is intended for interface types which have a more reliable > and/or efficient way to deliver unicast packets than broadcast ones > (e.g. wifi). Why is this not done in MAC80211 rather than bridge?

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:32:14 +0100 Linus Lüssing wrote: > This feature is intended for interface types which have a more reliable > and/or efficient way to deliver unicast packets than broadcast ones > (e.g. wifi). Why is this not done in MAC80211 rather than bridge?

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-06 14:54, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast >> stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of >> the group. Can the mac80211 feature do the same? > > No, it'll convert the packet for all clients that are

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-06 14:54, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast >> stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of >> the group. Can the mac80211 feature do the same? > > No, it'll convert the packet for all clients that are

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

> The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast > stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of > the group. Can the mac80211 feature do the same? No, it'll convert the packet for all clients that are behind that netdev. But that's an argument for

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

> The bridge layer can use IGMP snooping to ensure that the multicast > stream is only transmitted to clients that are actually a member of > the group. Can the mac80211 feature do the same? No, it'll convert the packet for all clients that are behind that netdev. But that's an argument for

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-06 13:47, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 20:32 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: >> Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver >> multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast >> individually. This is done by copying the packet per host

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-06 13:47, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 20:32 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: >> Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver >> multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast >> individually. This is done by copying the packet per host

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 20:32 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver > multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast > individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and > changing the multicast destination MAC

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 20:32 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver > multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast > individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and > changing the multicast destination MAC

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-02 20:32, Linus Lüssing wrote: > Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver > multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast > individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and > changing the multicast destination MAC to a unicast

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 2017-01-02 20:32, Linus Lüssing wrote: > Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver > multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast > individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and > changing the multicast destination MAC to a unicast

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 02/01/17 20:32, Linus Lüssing wrote: Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and changing the multicast destination MAC to a unicast one

Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

On 02/01/17 20:32, Linus Lüssing wrote: Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and changing the multicast destination MAC to a unicast one

[PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and changing the multicast destination MAC to a unicast one accordingly. multicast-to-unicast works on top

[PATCH net-next] bridge: multicast to unicast

Implements an optional, per bridge port flag and feature to deliver multicast packets to any host on the according port via unicast individually. This is done by copying the packet per host and changing the multicast destination MAC to a unicast one accordingly. multicast-to-unicast works on top