Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753999AbdCOPYd (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:24:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49262 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751280AbdCOPXC (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:23:02 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 0212113A5E Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jbenc@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 0212113A5E Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:22:57 +0100 From: Jiri Benc To: Matthias Schiffer Cc: davem@davemloft.net, hannes@stressinduktion.org, pshelar@ovn.org, aduyck@mirantis.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] vxlan: allow multiple VXLANs with same VNI for IPv6 link-local addresses Message-ID: <20170315162257.127b27d6@griffin> In-Reply-To: <1542ef1a-4bc2-d142-1910-0583c3c543a6@universe-factory.net> References: <5c74248483272110d0ca249b80b943b0ceb0b610.1489184335.git.mschiffer@universe-factory.net> <20170314162815.7aae9e94@griffin> <1542ef1a-4bc2-d142-1910-0583c3c543a6@universe-factory.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 613 Lines: 19 On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:29:29 +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote: > While ensuring that the destination address is link-local iff the source > address is would also be an option, it didn't seem too useful as the > destination address will be a multicast address anyways in "normal" VXLAN > configurations. If we really want to check this, I guess the valid > combinations are: > > source link-local - destination link-local UC > source link-local - destination link-local MC > source global/... - destination global/... UC > source global/... - destination any MC > > Does this make sense? It does. Thanks! Jiri