Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:40:42 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VLAN_MTU (was Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h) Message-ID: <20040528084042.GG76909@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20040527150228.GB30789@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> References: <200405251449.i4PEnkIa098672@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040525164251.GA3245@ip.net.ua> <20040525173458.GA18554@comp.chem.msu.su> <20040525184757.GA5546@ip.net.ua> <20040526032055.GA42697@comp.chem.msu.su> <20040526064152.GD24738@cell.sick.ru> <20040527141055.GA32704@comp.chem.msu.su> <20040527150228.GB30789@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:02:28AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > > Y> Another way I see is to drop automatic fiddling with VLAN_MTU in > > > Y> the first place and implement an option for ifconfig(8) so that a > > > Y> user/admin can control the capability WRT a particular case, e.g., > > > Y> disable it if a NIC displays erroneous behaviour in long frame mode. > > > > > > From my point of view this is a good idea. > > > > The longer I've been thinking of the issue, the more I'm inclined > > to take the latter path. I believe that it would conform to the > > good tradition of Unix to offer a user as much control as possible > > and avoid doing "automagic" tricks behind user's back. > > > > Therefore I'd like to ask the community: Would anybody mind if > > vlan(4) gave up playing with VLAN_MTU on parent interfaces > > while a new option to ifconfig(8), say `vlanmtu', was introduced > > so that a user could control the feature manually? > > This seems OK as long as you enabled VLAN_MTU by default as I see you > have just done with fxp. Thanks for your comment! Presently all our network interfaces supporting VLAN_MTU have it enabled by default. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040528084042.GG76909>