netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: 26 Feb 2004 20:49:00 +0100
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:49:00 +0100
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040223133233.71eecc99.davem@redhat.com>
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>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sorry for the late answer.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:32:33PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > 2) IPV6 icmp does the same as ipv4, except this value is even more wrong 
> > > there
> > >    especially considering jumbograms.  With current code, sending a 
> > > jumbogram
> > >    ipv6 icmp packet would simply fail, and I wonder if anyone has even 
> > > tried
> > >    this.
> > 
> > Isn't even ICMPv6 limited to the minimum guaranteed MTU (1000 something) 
> > like ICMPv4 is to
> > 576 bytes?
> 
> What about ECHO?  I can't send an ICMPv6 jumbo sized ECHO and expect a fully 
> quoted response
> back?

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? 

-Andi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>