Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:21:45 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: snap-users@kame.net Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: MUT of stf (Re: (KAME-snap 8815) Re: Weird memory exhaustion with FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE) Message-ID: <y7vd5zenpzq.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409291056060.32071-100000@netcore.fi> References: <y7v8yavsbhu.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409291056060.32071-100000@netcore.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Forgot to respond to this point: >>>>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:59:32 +0300 (EEST), >>>>> Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> said: > Speaking of 6to4, if_stf.c does not support setting the MTU, because > there's no ioctl handler for it. It wouldn't IMHO hurt to be able to > raise it from the glued-in default of 1280.. According to itojun (the principal author of the stf driver), it's on purpose. He said the reason for the restriction is because stf normally had multiple (anonymous) destinations and we couldn't pre-negotiate the size of the receiving buffer at the other ends. (No further questions on this to me, please:-) JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vd5zenpzq.wl>