Skip to contentSkip to conversation

New: Scope 1 in multicast addresses in IPV6 should be node local

Bugme-new Andrew Morton 2 participants 2 messages Jun 3, 2009 – Jun 4, 2009 1 message not in the archive

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore

A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]/

#1 lore raw

(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface).

Quoted 25 lines · On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:06:29 GMT [email protected] wrote:

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13443

           Summary: Scope 1 in multicast addresses in IPV6 should be node
                    local
           Product: Networking
           Version: 2.5
    Kernel Version: 2.6.27
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
              Tree: Mainline
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P1
         Component: IPV6
        AssignedTo: [email protected]
        ReportedBy: [email protected]
        Regression: No

I think scope 1 in multicast addresses in IPV6 should be node local (according to all the documentation + rfc I found on the web) and therefore pkt's with such destination address should not go on the wire.
When I try to send a udp pkt with sock_dgram to such ipv6 address with scope 1 I see the pkt is going on the wire and I can catch it on the other side by joining this multicast address.

maintainer
#2 lore raw

From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:40:31 -0700

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines

I think scope 1 in multicast addresses in IPV6 should be node local (according to all the documentation + rfc I found on the web) and therefore pkt's with such destination address should not go on the wire.
When I try to send a udp pkt with sock_dgram to such ipv6 address with scope 1 I see the pkt is going on the wire and I can catch it on the other side by joining this multicast address.

It looks like we need an addr_type and device check in ip6_output().

But in my opinion this is a pretty bogus requirement. It's so easy for things like netfilter, the packet scheduler classifier, or other entities to get the packet to be rewritten from loopback to an externally visible interface.