John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 19:05 +0200:
>
> Ok, finally got a switch (and gige cards, if_re needs work) capable of
> jumbo frames..
>
> > John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > > In a recent experiment w/ Jumbo frames, I found out that sending ip
Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 19:05 +0200:
Ok, finally got a switch (and gige cards, if_re needs work) capable of
jumbo frames..
> John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > In a recent experiment w/ Jumbo frames, I found out that sending ip
> > frames completely ignores the MTU set
Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 19:05 +0200:
> John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> >
> > In a recent experiment w/ Jumbo frames, I found out that sending ip
> > frames completely ignores the MTU set on host routes. This makes it
> > difficult (or next to impossible) to support a
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> In a recent experiment w/ Jumbo frames, I found out that sending ip
> frames completely ignores the MTU set on host routes. This makes it
> difficult (or next to impossible) to support a network that has both
> regular and jumbo frames on it as you can't restrict some
In a recent experiment w/ Jumbo frames, I found out that sending ip
frames completely ignores the MTU set on host routes. This makes it
difficult (or next to impossible) to support a network that has both
regular and jumbo frames on it as you can't restrict some hosts to the
smaller frames.
I now
