Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 15:58:34 +0000 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) Message-ID: <bug-234472-7501-mTryoJ960z@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-234472-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-234472-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D234472 Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |Not A Bug Status|New |Closed --- Comment #14 from Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Andreas Pflug from comment #12) Having thought about this some more I think even more strongly that changing the behaviour would be wrong. Multicast is a routable protocol, even if the Ethernet address resolution is different from unicast traffic. There may also be use cases for the current behaviour (and route-to *does* do exactly what it's designed and documented= to do). Moreover, the problem you ran into is specific to Ethernet, so introducing changes in a layer 3 firewall for the sake of one layer 2 protocol is also = the wrong strategy. Rodney is also correct that this is a policy question which you can express= in your rules. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-234472-7501-mTryoJ960z>