From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 4 11:49:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03BA106564A; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:49:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C388FC29; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:49:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42DA2D733C; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:49:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:49:05 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: oLGrdBABY9cxm3Oo8wZKAX9GWBMFi9plIgzVUz8iG4mX 1236167345 Received: from [192.168.123.18] (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0907C361D9; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:49:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49AE6AAF.5090905@incunabulum.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:49:03 +0000 From: Bruce Simpson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <49ADDDCE.5000203@incunabulum.net> <20090304105525.90665tgxalwo19ss@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20090304105525.90665tgxalwo19ss@webmail.leidinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: IGMPv3/SSM: alpha code drop. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:49:07 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > ... > Is this supposed to make multicast work in a jail? In the past I tried > some simple tests (e.g. mtest(8)), but I wasn't able to receive > anything in a jail (this test was triggered by the fact, that some > avahi-tools from the avahi port didn't showed an expected result). Not really, no, I have just been making my best guess here. I would hope bz would join in once it's checked in -- as I understand it, jails are a difficult case for multicast (and broadcast) sockets because of how they change how address lookup works. Other than that I have done no testing with jails. I believe the code will continue to work as-is, however others are welcome to test and contribute once it's in. thanks, BMS