Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mcproxy: fix igmpv3 and mld record type #1032

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rthakur33
Copy link

This patch fixes that if IGMPv3 Membership Report packet on the LAN interface with ALLOW_NEW_SOURCES record containing specific source is sent, then IGMPv3 Membership Report packet is received on the WAN interface and group record is ALLOW_NEW_SOURCES for the group with a matching source list.

This patch fixes that if IGMPv3 Membership Report packet on the
LAN interface with ALLOW_NEW_SOURCES record containing specific
source is sent, then IGMPv3 Membership Report packet is received
on the WAN interface and group record is ALLOW_NEW_SOURCES for
the group with a matching source list.

Signed-off-by: Rahul Thakur  <[email protected]>
@mwarning
Copy link
Contributor

mwarning commented Nov 7, 2023

@sbyx ping

@BKPepe
Copy link
Member

BKPepe commented Feb 4, 2024

Is this patch included in upstream? If not, are you willing to send it there?

@rthakur33
Copy link
Author

Is this patch included in upstream? If not, are you willing to send it there?

@BKPepe , thanks for your comment, I actually tried there first mcproxy/mcproxy#18 but got no response hence raised this as a patch here.

@BKPepe
Copy link
Member

BKPepe commented Jul 21, 2024

I was thinking, if the upstream is dead for more than 7 years. What about rather dropping this package at all? Here are a few points which leads that removing is gonna be helpful:

  • If there is any issue (bug/security vulnerability), upstream developers probably will not look into it.
  • If you want to have fixed something there, then most likely, it will not get any attention as well.
  • I am not able to see this package in other GNU/Linux distributions such as Debian, Ubuntu, etc.

Sometimes, it is just better to move on instead of relying on something which is obviously not working.

@rthakur33
Copy link
Author

I was thinking, if the upstream is dead for more than 7 years. What about rather dropping this package at all? Here are a few points which leads that removing is gonna be helpful:

  • If there is any issue (bug/security vulnerability), upstream developers probably will not look into it.
  • If you want to have fixed something there, then most likely, it will not get any attention as well.
  • I am not able to see this package in other GNU/Linux distributions such as Debian, Ubuntu, etc.

Sometimes, it is just better to move on instead of relying on something which is obviously not working.

+1 from me.

@BKPepe
Copy link
Member

BKPepe commented Jul 23, 2024

I will create PR for removal shortly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants