On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:24:18PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
> Er, how is it possible to send a UDP packet > 65535? Last time I looked
> it was a 16-bit field.
This is explained in section 4. of RFC 2675, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2675.txt
--
Craig Rodrigues
http:/
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> I think at this point, you are going to have to look at the
> sources; IMO, it's a problem in some code that calls the
> ether_output() function directly with too large a packet, and
> since NFS doesn't manually implement TCP, that's not it.
>
> Hmmm. Is
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 01:09:07PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Barney Wolff wrote:
> > > Implies the sending host is not honoring the MTU restriction when
> > > deciding whether or not to frag packets.
> >
> > 67582 looks awfully bogus even as a pre-frag length. How could that come
> > over the
Barney Wolff wrote:
> > Implies the sending host is not honoring the MTU restriction when
> > deciding whether or not to frag packets.
>
> 67582 looks awfully bogus even as a pre-frag length. How could that come
> over the wire?
The sending host is not honoring the MTU restriction?
8-) 8-).
Mo
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Michal Mertl wrote:
...
> > As I recall, when I used a crossover cable, I could not get the
> > adapters to go to 1000, only 100. That might have been the cable,
> > or not.
>
> I can confirm it works equally well with crossover as with straight cable.
Depends usually. S
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:56:11AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Michal Mertl wrote:
> > I then left one computer at 4.9 and upgraded the other to 5.0. When I
> > mount a partition from 5.0 machine I found out, that copying reliably
> > works only from 5.0 to 4.9. The other way around I see message
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Barney Wolff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 08:04:58AM -0800, Sam Leffler wrote:
> >
> > I've ran many jumbogram tests of machines connected with a cross-over cable
> > and em devices at each end. If you've got a swtch in the middle make sure it
> > does the right thing.
>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
> Michal Mertl writes:
> | On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Sam Leffler wrote:
> |
> | > On Thursday 30 October 2003 04:46 am, Michal Mertl wrote:
> | > > I wanted to test gigabit network performance and found out that current
> | > > (from 5.0 to up to date -current)
Michal Mertl wrote:
> I then left one computer at 4.9 and upgraded the other to 5.0. When I
> mount a partition from 5.0 machine I found out, that copying reliably
> works only from 5.0 to 4.9. The other way around I see messages 'em0:
> discard oversize frame (ether type 800 flags 3 len 67582 > ma
Michal Mertl writes:
| On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Sam Leffler wrote:
|
| > On Thursday 30 October 2003 04:46 am, Michal Mertl wrote:
| > > I wanted to test gigabit network performance and found out that current
| > > (from 5.0 to up to date -current) doesn't fully work with jumbograms (MTU
| > > set to
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:48:32PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > As I recall, when I used a crossover cable, I could not get the
> > adapters to go to 1000, only 100. That might have been the cable,
> > or not.
>
> That's at least conceivable; I don't know enough about the wire
> protocol to
< said:
> Just a minor note: GigE should not require a crossover cable. It's
> supposed to work to connect two GigE adapters with a straight-thru
> cable. I verified this with two Intel em NICs, quite a while ago.
This should hardly be surprising, since 1000BASE-TX transmits and
receives bidire
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 08:04:58AM -0800, Sam Leffler wrote:
>
> I've ran many jumbogram tests of machines connected with a cross-over cable
> and em devices at each end. If you've got a swtch in the middle make sure it
> does the right thing.
Just a minor note: GigE should not require a cross
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Sam Leffler wrote:
> On Thursday 30 October 2003 04:46 am, Michal Mertl wrote:
> > I wanted to test gigabit network performance and found out that current
> > (from 5.0 to up to date -current) doesn't fully work with jumbograms (MTU
> > set to 6000), Intel adapters and nfs (bo
On Thursday 30 October 2003 04:46 am, Michal Mertl wrote:
> I wanted to test gigabit network performance and found out that current
> (from 5.0 to up to date -current) doesn't fully work with jumbograms (MTU
> set to 6000), Intel adapters and nfs (both UDP and TCP).
>
> I checked that the same thin
I wanted to test gigabit network performance and found out that current
(from 5.0 to up to date -current) doesn't fully work with jumbograms (MTU
set to 6000), Intel adapters and nfs (both UDP and TCP).
I checked that the same thing works with 4.9.
I then left one computer at 4.9 and upgraded the
16 matches
Mail list logo
