> > It could certainly be argued by some that Cisco is not standards > > compliant in this case for sending an oversized Ethernet frame > > and expecting everyone to accept it. Hardware has limitations > > and assuming that all Ethernet controllers can support frames > > greater than 1522 bytes is not reasonable. Fortunately there is > > a suitable workaround which is setting a larger MTU for the > > interface. What size do you use? How did you arrive at that > > value? > > I use 1550 to make it work in the test harness. > > The trouble is that if I set the mtu to 1550, and the machine > talks to another > such machine with it's mtu also set to 1550 then they > negotiate a maximum sized > packet based on 1550, and the problem hits me again. This is > a web proxy > and that problem occurs when there are two layers of proxy > and one proxy talks to > another. I really just need it to to silently accept a packet some > 32 bytes or so larger than the stated MTU. > > I see no reason for the driver to not do what the em driver > does and allow > itself to receive any packet up to the MCLBYTES size. > > We only hit this problem recently because the data interfaces on our > devices are usually em NICs and we only just recently started > allowing the > users to use the built in (on DELL 2950) bce interfaces for > this purpose. >
I'm not completely opposed to making such a change, but I don't want to make a default change in the driver's behavior that other people may be depending upon (whether they are aware of it or not). A tunable driver value could be the answer but I'm not entirely sure how it would fare in the hardware at the high end of MTU values such as 9000. Dave _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
