Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:23:07 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet raw_ip.c Message-ID: <45FFE03B.5030103@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070320132025.GP2713@FreeBSD.org> References: <200703201315.l2KDFKd0065099@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070320132025.GP2713@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > We've got interfaces with even larger MTU. Why shouldn't we permit sending > larger datagrams? > It seems reasonable to be consistent in the amount of send space we reserve for both SOCK_RAW and SOCK_DGRAM in netinet. I agree however that this is really the application's problem -- it should probe for interface MTU and set SO_SENDBUF accordingly, and this is what I originally told the submitter. regards, BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45FFE03B.5030103>