On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 01:16:53PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> >
> > For consistency with other vendors and rfc, I would prefer to remove zero
> > address election.
> > For compatibility with previous users, I'm also OK to revert it.
> > > Regards
> > Hangbin
> >
>
> Hi,
> In this case
On 22/02/2019 09:57, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Hi Nikolay,
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:20:14PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree. But this "regression" could be fixed by setting up correct
>>> switch configuration. See more explains below.
>>>
>>
>> That is irrelevant, if the se
Hi Nikolay,
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:20:14PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I agree. But this "regression" could be fixed by setting up correct
> > switch configuration. See more explains below.
> >
>
> That is irrelevant, if the setup once worked we should not break it unless
On 21/02/2019 10:01, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Sorry, my mail client somehow droped your message and I didn't see your reply.
> I find this mail after Nikolay pointed out yesterday.
>
>> Hi and thanks for your reply!
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:32:16AM +0800, Ying Xu wrote:
>>> I t
Hi Linus,
Sorry, my mail client somehow droped your message and I didn't see your reply.
I find this mail after Nikolay pointed out yesterday.
> Hi and thanks for your reply!
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:32:16AM +0800, Ying Xu wrote:
> > I think the scenario mentioned above is abnormal.
>
>
Hi and thanks for your reply!
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:32:16AM +0800, Ying Xu wrote:
> I think the scenario mentioned above is abnormal.
Can we agree, that this scenario, if switch A and B were using the
current bridge code, has issues right now which it did
not have before that patch?
I also
Even though RFC4541 recommends this, I'm not quite sure whether
this works... even for IGMP.
I think this would lead to multicast packet loss in a scenario
like this:
--
[Switch A] -- [Switch B]
/ /
/ /
