1. 29 8月, 2015 4 次提交
    • D
      net: Add helper function to compare inetpeer addresses · d39d14ff
      David Ahern 提交于
      tcp_metrics and inetpeer both have functions to compare inetpeer
      addresses. Consolidate into 1 version.
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      d39d14ff
    • D
      net: Add set,get helpers for inetpeer addresses · 3abef286
      David Ahern 提交于
      Use inetpeer set,get helpers in tcp_metrics rather than peeking into
      the inetpeer_addr struct.
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      3abef286
    • D
      net: Introduce ipv4_addr_hash and use it for tcp metrics · 72afa352
      David Ahern 提交于
      Refactors a common line into helper function.
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      72afa352
    • P
      IGMP: Inhibit reports for local multicast groups · df2cf4a7
      Philip Downey 提交于
      The range of addresses between 224.0.0.0 and 224.0.0.255 inclusive, is
      reserved for the use of routing protocols and other low-level topology
      discovery or maintenance protocols, such as gateway discovery and
      group membership reporting.  Multicast routers should not forward any
      multicast datagram with destination addresses in this range,
      regardless of its TTL.
      
      Currently, IGMP reports are generated for this reserved range of
      addresses even though a router will ignore this information since it
      has no purpose.  However, the presence of reserved group addresses in
      an IGMP membership report uses up network bandwidth and can also
      obscure addresses of interest when inspecting membership reports using
      packet inspection or debug messages.
      
      Although the RFCs for the various version of IGMP (e.g.RFC 3376 for
      v3) do not specify that the reserved addresses be excluded from
      membership reports, it should do no harm in doing so.  In particular
      there should be no adverse effect in any IGMP snooping functionality
      since 224.0.0.x is specifically excluded as per RFC 4541 (IGMP and MLD
      Snooping Switches Considerations) section 2.1.2. Data Forwarding
      Rules:
      
          2) Packets with a destination IP (DIP) address in the 224.0.0.X
             range which are not IGMP must be forwarded on all ports.
      
      IGMP reports for local multicast groups can now be optionally
      inhibited by means of a system control variable (by setting the value
      to zero) e.g.:
          echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/igmp_link_local_mcast_reports
      
      To retain backwards compatibility the previous behaviour is retained
      by default on system boot or reverted by setting the value back to
      non-zero e.g.:
          echo 1 >  /proc/sys/net/ipv4/igmp_link_local_mcast_reports
      Signed-off-by: NPhilip Downey <pdowney@brocade.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      df2cf4a7
  2. 28 8月, 2015 25 次提交
  3. 27 8月, 2015 6 次提交
  4. 26 8月, 2015 5 次提交