> From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:jay.vosbu...@canonical.com]
> Debabrata Banerjee <dbane...@akamai.com> wrote:
> >- if
> (!ether_addr_equal_64bits(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst,
> >- mac_bcast) &&
> >-
> !is_zero_ether_addr(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst)) {
> >+ if
> (is_valid_ether_addr(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst)) {
>
> This change and the similar ones below will now fail non-broadcast
> multicast Ethernet addresses, where the prior code would not. Is this an
> intentional change?
Yes I don't see how it makes sense to use multicast addresses at all, but I may
be missing something. It's also illegal according to rfc1812 3.3.2, but
obviously this balancing mode is trying to be very clever. We probably
shouldn't violate the rfc anyway.
