Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:20:07 +0000 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Lars Eggert <larse@ISI.EDU> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UDP datagram max size. Message-ID: <200103141720.aa85840@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:15:49 PST." <3AAFA745.AA3EC6B6@isi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> So it may be okay to punt on jumbograms for now, and use a 64K static > buffer like the patch in the PR does. Even if you do implement support for > jumbograms, I think keeping the 64K static buffer around as a "fast-path" > for the common case makes sense. Does it talk about how jumbograms will apply to UDP? I suspect the max udp data size might be unchanged anyway... The problem remains even if I punt on jumbograms though, how should I spell 65536? David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi? <200103141720.aa85840>