2009/12/8 Bruce Simpson <b...@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. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
