Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:47:40 +0200 From: Andriy Syrovenko <andriys@gmail.com> To: Bruce Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, flo@smeets.im Subject: Re: kern/138666: [multicast] [panic] not working multicast through igmpproxy Message-ID: <3e2b8dd90912080247s247bd878ud9fe4b234ff83f84@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B1E2574.8010704@incunabulum.net> References: <200912071020.nB7AK77I023054@freefall.freebsd.org> <4B1CDEE5.6080507@incunabulum.net> <3e2b8dd90912070305t6ffc08a6gf7acd8890d028854@mail.gmail.com> <4B1D07C3.6090005@incunabulum.net> <3e2b8dd90912080114x31d962acqf2c8a360e7b5a83d@mail.gmail.com> <4B1E1EF0.8040503@incunabulum.net> <3e2b8dd90912080155s544a7a50j17882b35f1343750@mail.gmail.com> <4B1E2574.8010704@incunabulum.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/12/8 Bruce Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net>: > The only other thing I can think of is: is this an igmpproxy issue, ie. is > the IGMP traffic which is causing problems, coming from igmpproxy itself? That's possible. > The kernel never generates IGMP control traffic related to routing. Any IGMP > traffic generated by userland, generally uses the raw socket interface. I don't yet understand all the mechanics behind the multicast routing. And igmpproxy does seem to use raw sockets to send igmp packets. However when I tried to do some investigations yesterday evening, I added a couple of printf()s to igmp_v1v2_queue_report() in sys/netinet/igmp.c, and I saw their output in dmesg while switching multicast groups. > Userland could potentially also use pcap to inject directly to the link > layer, and indeed, that might be a more desirable situation where the daemon > is intended to run on interfaces w/o an IPv4 address. Of course, this > entirely bypasses the host IP stack. This does not seem to be the case with the igmpproxy.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3e2b8dd90912080247s247bd878ud9fe4b234ff83f84>