From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 6 16:00:46 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4077B16A41F for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:00:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.156.12.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BABE43D64 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:00:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9684746B55; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:00:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:00:31 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Mark Tinguely In-Reply-To: <200509061535.j86FZl8D086184@casselton.net> Message-ID: <20050906165955.S78038@fledge.watson.org> References: <200509061535.j86FZl8D086184@casselton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: yar@comp.chem.msu.su, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 6.0BETA3 panic in ip_output (vlan/RIP related?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:00:46 -0000 On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> So it sounds like we need to figure out how the multicast code should >> behave on interface removal -- I wonder what other operating systems do >> here? Do they simply invalidate current membership related with the >> interface, or do they leave the multicast sockets in a state such that >> if the interface comes back, the memberships are re-bound? > > In the case of a non-local multicast sessions, the saved multicast > socket state would need to keep a timestamp of the last a multicast > router IGMP session probe to detect the possibility of session pruning. I was assuming that, at the very least, it would be necessary to issue a new IGMP join when binding the socket to a new interface... Robert N M Watson