Banerjee, Debabrata <dbane...@akamai.com> wrote:
>> 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.
Fair enough, but I think it would be good to call this out in
the change log just in case it does somehow cause a regression.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosbu...@canonical.com
