netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [EXPERIMENTAL PATCH] 2.4 tulip jumbo frames

To: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <rask@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL PATCH] 2.4 tulip jumbo frames
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:22:34 -0800
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20031219153242.B1390@sygehus.dk>
Organization: Candela Technologies Inc
References: <20031209160632.D1345@sygehus.dk> <3FD5FC36.5090405@pobox.com> <20031209223214.A1855@sygehus.dk> <3FD64EC9.6010203@candelatech.com> <20031209224906.M53356@sygehus.dk> <20031219153242.B1390@sygehus.dk>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:40:02AM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:


That said, even checking CONFIG_VLAN_8021Q is probably flawed too, because ideally, even when building a kernel without VLAN support, you should be able to use the bridging support in a VLAN environment. IMHO. I mean, if this is not the case, please remind me why we need VLAN patches in the first place since setting an MTU of 1496 bytes works with every Ethernet board and driver.


Further, why is it not the responsibility of vconfig to ensure that the MTU
of the VLAN device is 4 lower than that of the underlying, "bare" Ethernet
device?

Because correctly patched drivers can have eth0 with MTU 1500 and vlan eth0.5 with MTU of 1500 as well. I do not want to add artificial policy in vconfig or the kernel,though of course users can hack up the MTU settings manually as desired...

Ben


-- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Ben_Greear@xxxxxxxxxx> President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear


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