On 1/10/16, 2:28 AM, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 01/09/16 at 10:39am, roopa wrote:
>> On 1/6/16, 5:33 AM, David Wragg wrote:
>>> Allow the MTU of vxlan devices without an underlying device to be set to
>>> larger values (up to a maximum based on IP packet limits and vxlan
>>> overhead).
>>>
>>> Previou
On 01/09/16 at 10:39am, roopa wrote:
> On 1/6/16, 5:33 AM, David Wragg wrote:
> > Allow the MTU of vxlan devices without an underlying device to be set to
> > larger values (up to a maximum based on IP packet limits and vxlan
> > overhead).
> >
> > Previously, their MTUs could not be set to higher
On 1/6/16, 5:33 AM, David Wragg wrote:
> Allow the MTU of vxlan devices without an underlying device to be set to
> larger values (up to a maximum based on IP packet limits and vxlan
> overhead).
>
> Previously, their MTUs could not be set to higher than the conventional
> ethernet value of 1500.
Allow the MTU of vxlan devices without an underlying device to be set to
larger values (up to a maximum based on IP packet limits and vxlan
overhead).
Previously, their MTUs could not be set to higher than the conventional
ethernet value of 1500. This is a very arbitrary value in the context
of v
