From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue May 7 18:27:02 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35CC158FFD8 for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:27:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2006F030 for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:27:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id F188E158FFD3; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E017A158FFD1 for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C20A6F02E for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 434762543A for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:26:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x47IQxFm083795 for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:26:59 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x47IQx0r083794 for net@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:26:59 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 234472] CARP using wrong multicast MAC destination (was: Missing outgoing CARP traffic on interface) Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 18:26:58 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: pgadmin@pse-consulting.de X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 18:27:03 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D234472 --- Comment #10 from Andreas Pflug --- AFAICS the rule actually does as advised, since naively speaking 224.0.0.18 isn't in the ix4 network and so anything should be routed to the stdgw. But it's IP multicast, and so route-to shouldn't be applied in any case on 224.0.0.0/4, according to RFC1112. I added "pass out quick from {ix4} to 224.0.0.0/4" before that route-to rul= e, preventing the misshaped multicast packet. So actually pf does as advised to straight forward, but this will break multicast specifications. IMHO pf should implement the special behaviour on multicast packets implicitely, i.e. excepting them from routing, because th= is issue has been around for years without being diagnosed correctly (probably blaming some innocent switch IGMP implementations), and users probably don't expect a standard default gateway routing command breaking local multicast traffic. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=