| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:42:45 -0800 |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040226194900.GA8230@colin2.muc.de> |
| References: | <20040223105359.GA91938@colin2.muc.de> <20040223.200101.39143636.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20040223111659.GB10681@colin2.muc.de> <20040223.203843.04073965.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20040223102613.33838132.davem@redhat.com> <20040225211526.74478066.ak@suse.de> <20040223133233.71eecc99.davem@redhat.com> <20040226194900.GA8230@colin2.muc.de> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On 26 Feb 2004 20:49:00 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think it should be only sized for big datagrams and other obscure > cases. > Better is a reasonable default to fit at least 64K of data with a standard > MTU like ~1.4K. > Or may resize it on MTU change, but I'm not sure that's worth the effort. > > Are you working on this or should I prepare a new patch? Let's just leave things how we've changed them, and when people complain about jumbo MTU ipv6 icmp messages we'll address it. Thanks. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH]: invaild TCP/UDP matching when ipv6 extension header exists, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |