Stephen Clark wrote:
Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello,
Did something change in 6.2? If my mtu size on rl0 is 1280 it won't
accept a larger incomming packet.
kernel: rl0: discard oversize frame (ether type 800 flags 3 len 1514
> max
1294)
That is what to be exp
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:14:03 -0600 Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 06:23 PM 7/11/2007, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> >Did you try and use just LCP echo mode instead ? I have come across a
> >number of devices (especially GPRS/EVDO cards) that seem to say yes to
> >supporting LQR, but do not
At 12:41 PM 7/14/2007, Brian Somers wrote:
>> disable lqr
>> allow lqr
>
>accept lqr
>
>> enable echo
>> echoperiod 12
>
>set echoperiod 12
Yes, found and fixed both of these mistakes.
>I'd also add "set log +lqm" to your configuration.
Will try that.
>I expect unacknowledged LQR packets to b
Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello,
Did something change in 6.2? If my mtu size on rl0 is 1280 it won't
accept a larger incomming packet.
kernel: rl0: discard oversize frame (ether type 800 flags 3 len 15
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:18:49 +0200 Stefan Ehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On CURRENT, each time I stop/start vpnc a new tun device is created.
> Since I restart vpnc every time I re-connect to the network, my ifconfig
> output fills up with tun devices.
>
> On 6.2-RELEASE the tun0 device is r
Mike Karels wrote:
In -CURRENT my changes to the ethernet input path maintain the use of
ETHER_MAX_FRAME() however the check is folded under #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC. I
don't recall adding this conditional or touching it so it seems to be
something which was already thereo radded by someone else.
It
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:01:06 -0600 Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:41 PM 7/14/2007, Brian Somers wrote:
> >I expect unacknowledged LQR packets to be resent
> >5 times (exactly the same packet), and the 6th
> >timeout to cause a line drop.
>
> That's what I thought too. But it seems
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Mike Karels wrote:
The ability to receive packets larger than mtu was not accidental. This
should be fixed, if it is, as is suggested, a deliberate change.
I'd be happy to see the change undone as well. I (well, our test group)
found this change in a similar way, and it
> A related change that should probably be discussed if we want to think more
> about asymmetry in maximum transmission unit is this one:
>
>revision 1.98
>date: 2006/06/26 17:54:53; author: andre; state: Exp; lines: +2 -0
>In syncache_respond() do n
Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote this message on Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 15:41 +0200:
> You are trying to lower the mtu on the wrong end.
> As i said, all hosts on the same L2 needs to share the same mtu.
> The router that forwarded you that packet is obviously not using the
> same mtu (otherwise it would
10 matches
Mail list logo
