Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:40:01 -0800 From: Eli Dart <dart@nersc.gov> To: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> Cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: jumbo-frames on the network Message-ID: <20040129164001.61DE5F8EB@gemini.nersc.gov> In-Reply-To: Message from Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> <200401290330.i0T3UP7E085602@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-1058242534P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In reply to Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> : > On 28 Jan, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > <<On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:49:02 -0500, mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com said: > > > >> Can different MTUs be mixed on the same wire > > > > No. > > It's ugly, but I wonder if adding host routes with the -lock -mtu > options might work ... I wouldn't even mess with it. If you have an MTU mismatch on the same layer-2 domain, you have a Broken Network. If you manage to make it work with duct tape and zip ties, you're only setting yourself up for operational pain down the road. Just put a layer-3 hop in between your standard frame and jumbo frame hosts, and you're good to go. The other thing people often do is block all ICMP because "ICMP is bad" and then wonder why path MTU discovery breaks :P --eli > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > --==_Exmh_-1058242534P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFAGTdhLTFEeF+CsrMRApSGAJ9dRKgThcWy/2uAfXMjCq/iXMtXeACfQ1W2 JYlUZ8iNKYwOyt80kSNnhgA= =9SH1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1058242534P--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040129164001.61DE5F8EB>