Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:30:19 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: karels@karels.net Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, David Christensen <davidch@broadcom.com>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: BCE on FreeBSD and oversized packet acceptance. Message-ID: <46EC32CB.2030202@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200709151850.l8FIo0na042120@redrock.karels.net> References: <200709151850.l8FIo0na042120@redrock.karels.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Karels wrote: >>> Secure Computing (my employer) has a modification that seems reasonable >>> to me (well, I guess I wouldn't have done it otherwise). We adopted the >>> existing but unused JUMBO_MTU capability flag, and, if enabled, instructs >>> the driver to receive jumbo frames according to the hardware limits. With >>> that flag, the MTU may be 1500, but the driver is still instructed to >>> receive jumbo frames even without sending them. The reason for this >>> is the lack of a way to negotiate the use of jumbo frames per host >>> (as far as I know; such a thing would certainly be useful, though). > >> certainly the adoption of that flag is reasonable. >> is it settable from ifconfig? >> it's probably better than saying "enable jumbo reception >> if mtu is greater than 1600 bytes" or whatever.. > > Yes, the flag is settable with ifconfig. It expands the "accept > what is convenient" to "and also accept whatever is reasonable > for jumbo" (for this NIC). > > Mike It would be interesting to get patches to look at.... Does it require changing all the drivers? I assume that if so, you'd only patch those you are interested in.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46EC32CB.2030202>