Andriy Syrovenko wrote:
>> Perhaps Florian can shed some light on your IGMP issue? igmpproxy only
>> understands IGMPv2, afaik.
>>
> Yep, it is igmp v2 only indeed.
>
The only other thing I can think of is: is this an igmpproxy issue, ie.
is the IGMP traffic which is causing problems, coming from igmpproxy itself?
The kernel never generates IGMP control traffic related to routing. Any
IGMP traffic generated by userland, generally uses the raw socket interface.
Userland could potentially also use pcap to inject directly to the link
layer, and indeed, that might be a more desirable situation where the
daemon is intended to run on interfaces w/o an IPv4 address. Of course,
this entirely bypasses the host IP stack.
thanks,
BMS