On 2017-01-11 12:26, IgorMitsyanko wrote: > On 01/11/2017 12:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> On 2017-01-10 11:56, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 05:18 +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>>> I wonder if MAC80211 should be doing IGMP snooping and not bridge >>>>> in this environment. >>>> >>>> In the long term, yes. For now, not quite sure. >>> >>> There's no "for now" in the kernel. Code added now will have to be >>> maintained essentially forever. >> I'm not sure that putting the IGMP snooping code in mac80211 is a good >> idea, that would be quite a bit of code duplication. >> This implementation works, it's very simple, and it's quite flexible for >> a number of use cases. >> >> Is there any remaining objection to merging this in principle (aside >> from potential issues with the code)? >> >> - Felix >> > > > Hi Felix, can we consider two examples configurations with multicast > traffic: > > 1. AP is a source of multicast traffic itself, no bridge on AP. For > example, wireless video server streaming to several clients. > In this situation, we can not make use of possible advantages given by > mc-to-uc conversion? You could simply put the AP interface in a bridge, no need to have any other bridge members present.
> 2. A configuration with AP + STA + 3 client devices behind STA. > ----|client 1| > | > | mc |----|AP|----|STA|---|---|client 2| > |server| | > ----|client 3| > > Multicast server behind AP streams MC video traffic. All 3 clients > behind the STA have joined the multicast group. > I'm not sure if this case will be handled correctly with mc-to-uc > conversion in bridge on AP? What do you mean by "3 client devices behind STA"? Are you using a 4-addr STA, multicast routing, or some kind of vendor specific "client bridge" hackery? - Felix
