Hi David,
David Stevens wrote:
From looking at the code, it appears that validate
source is failing just because of the rp_filter. Do you have
rp_filter set to nonzero?
If so, it may do what you want just by setting that
to 0:
sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter=0
rp_filter
I don't know about a new knob, but it's the same notion
as rp_filter, so why not use rpf for RTN_LOCAL types?
Ie, allow RTN_LOCAL and RTN_UNICAST at the top, but
check rpf if the devs aren't equal or RTN_LOCAL
It seems like not a good thing to rely on in the first place, though;
usually
From looking at the code, it appears that validate
source is failing just because of the rp_filter. Do you have
rp_filter set to nonzero?
If so, it may do what you want just by setting that
to 0:
sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter=0
David Stevens wrote:
I don't know why you'd want it to be different for multicasting. If you
want to hear your own multicasts, you should use MULTICAST_LOOP;
hearing them off the wire indicates all the same bad things -- a forger,
a duplicate address or a routing loop. Those aren't any better
I don't know why you'd want it to be different for multicasting. If you
want to hear your own multicasts, you should use MULTICAST_LOOP;
hearing them off the wire indicates all the same bad things -- a forger,
a duplicate address or a routing loop. Those aren't any better for
multicasting than
David Stevens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/19/2007 04:43:27 AM:
Vlad Yasevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, to figure out what IPv6 does different and why it works.
Seems to me that the two should have the same behavior.
IPv6 on Linux uses a per-interface addressing model as opposed
Vlad Yasevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, to figure out what IPv6 does different and why it works.
Seems to me that the two should have the same behavior.
IPv6 on Linux uses a per-interface addressing model as opposed
to the per-host model used by IPv4.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/19/2007 04:43:27 AM:
Vlad Yasevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, to figure out what IPv6 does different and why it works.
Seems to me that the two should have the same behavior.
IPv6 on Linux uses a per-interface addressing model as opposed
to the per-host
Vlad Yasevich wrote:
We've been trying to field some questions regarding multicast
behavior and one such behavior has stumped us.
I've reproduced the following behavior on 2.6.23.
The application opens 2 sockets. One socket is the receiver
and it simply binds to 0.0.0.0:2000 and joins a
We've been trying to field some questions regarding multicast
behavior and one such behavior has stumped us.
I've reproduced the following behavior on 2.6.23.
The application opens 2 sockets. One socket is the receiver
and it simply binds to 0.0.0.0:2000 and joins a multicast group
on interface
I'm not clear on your configuration.
Are the sender and receiver running on the same machine? Are
you saying eth0 and eth1 are connected on the same link?
+-DLS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to
Rick Jones wrote:
Vlad Yasevich wrote:
We've been trying to field some questions regarding multicast
behavior and one such behavior has stumped us.
I've reproduced the following behavior on 2.6.23.
The application opens 2 sockets. One socket is the receiver
and it simply binds to
David Stevens wrote:
I'm not clear on your configuration.
Are the sender and receiver running on the same machine? Are
you saying eth0 and eth1 are connected on the same link?
Yes and Yes.
I know it's a strange config, but it works with IPv6.
Here is the info off the reproducing system:
#
Can you send the contents of /proc/net/igmp and the packet trace,
also? And the code?
+-DLS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
David Stevens wrote:
Can you send the contents of /proc/net/igmp and the packet trace,
also? And the code?
+-DLS
# cat /proc/net/igmp
Idx Device: Count Querier GroupUsers TimerReporter
1 lo: 0 V3
You're joining the group on interface eth1, which is the
sender, right? You need to be a member on eth0 to receive it
there. I think your program needs another argument, to
specify the receiving interface, which you want to be
different from the sending interface.
David Stevens wrote:
You're joining the group on interface eth1, which is the
sender, right?
I may have switched the ordering in the last test I ran,
but I always join the group on the interface different
from the one I send on.
-vlad
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
17 matches
Mail list logo
