Artem Belevich wrote:
Here's one example where MTU!=MRU would be useful.
Think of asymmetric bandwith-limited ADSL links. Lower MTU would allow
lower TX latency for high priority packets when upstream is saturated,
yet large MRU on the downstream would be great for downloads.
Right now with 6.2
Eli Dart wrote:
The networks that are apparently working fine are most likely
misconfigured, IMHO.
Others have made a case for permitting an interface to accept as large a
packet as it can, regardless of configured MTU. That's fine for theory.
My operational experience leads me to a diffe
Eli Dart wrote:
see below...
Julian Elischer wrote:
Eli Dart wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
So was any decision reached on this issue - will FreeBSD changed
to accept a packet on an interface that is larger than the mtu on
that interface?
If possible, I'd like to see t
Artyom Viklenko wrote:
Artem Belevich wrote:
Here's one example where MTU!=MRU would be useful.
Think of asymmetric bandwith-limited ADSL links. Lower MTU would allow
lower TX latency for high priority packets when upstream is saturated,
yet large MRU on the downstream would be great for do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eli Dart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The networks that are apparently working fine are most likely
> misconfigured, IMHO.
>
> Others have made a case for permitting an interface to accept as large
> a packet as it can, regardless of configured MTU.
> Any two hosts, connected to single Layer2 network MUST use
> same MTU. Any other cases lead to hard-to-solve problems.
I'd have to disagree. In fact, I'd say that any two hosts on the
same L2 network must use the same MRU. In particular, if a host
choses to use a lower MTU, if that also lowers
The following reply was made to PR kern/112654; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Andy Farkas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/112654: [pcn] Kernel panic upon if_pcn module load on a
Netfinity 5000
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:28:33 +1000
Panic
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Eric L. Anderson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 10:45:25AM +1000, Norberto Meijome wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:07:37 +0100 (BST)
Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sounds a bit like something is running out of reserved ports to use -- the
credentials error may mea
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Eric L. Anderson wrote:
I can not change lowfirst to any higher amount. I did change lowlast from
600 to 1 and now I can mount more than 1000 NFS mounts. This is great but
what kind of side effects am I introducing by making this change?
The risk, btw, is that those reser
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
> > Can't say that I am pushing much traffic through my box, but after
> > applying your patch and rebuilding the kernel I am still seeing the
> > messages like
> > -
> > TCP: [209.132.176.NNN]:NNN to
I was unable to apply Mike's patch so I have manually applied it. Here
is a new one that should apply against today's -CURRENT.
Cheers,
Index: tcp_syncache.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/netinet/tcp_syncache.c,v
retrieving revi
11 matches
Mail list logo
