Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:32:18 +0100 From: Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/181388: [route] Routes not updated on mtu change Message-ID: <5211D812.5070308@rewt.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <201308190700.r7J701I9045665@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <201308190700.r7J701I9045665@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hm, I hadn't considered that... how do other OSes and vendors handle this? (eg Linux?) Just changing the connected route would probably suffice, or maybe if any routes not added with default interface mtu could/are be flagged, then those could be changed or not depending on what added them? Perhaps need someone with more experience of the network stack to wade in here... Cheers, Joe On 19/08/2013 08:00, Julian Elischer wrote: > The following reply was made to PR kern/181388; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> > To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, joe@rewt.org.uk > Cc: > Subject: Re: kern/181388: [route] Routes not updated on mtu change > Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:57:22 +0800 > > The problem is that this is not as simple as it seems. > The route MTU MIGHT have been set by something other than the > interface MTU > in the first place. > The interface MTU is a default for the route MTU but is not the only > source. > This actuall bit me a couple of days ago when I was wonderign why my > interface was not sending 9K packets.. turns out you need to do > 'ifconfig_xn0="DHCP mtu 9000"' in order to have your dncp > configured interface routes have the right size. > > so, I'm agreeing with you , but noticing that there are complications. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5211D812.5070308>