On 17/02/03 (金) 17:07, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:27:09 +0100 Eric Dumazet
wrote
> On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 14:32 +0100, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:53:47 +0100 Eric Dumazet
wrote
> > > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 17:41 +0100, Fred
/F
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:27:09 +0100 Eric Dumazet
wrote
> On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 14:32 +0100, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:53:47 +0100 Eric Dumazet
> > wrote
> > > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 17:41 +0100, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
> > > > H
On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 14:32 +0100, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:53:47 +0100 Eric Dumazet
> wrote
> > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 17:41 +0100, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've noticed an inconsistency between how physical ethernet and
> veth
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:53:47 +0100 Eric Dumazet
wrote
> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 17:41 +0100, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've noticed an inconsistency between how physical ethernet and veth
> > handles mtu.
> >
> > If I setup two physical interfaces (direc
On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 17:41 +0100, Fredrik Markstrom wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed an inconsistency between how physical ethernet and veth handles
> mtu.
>
> If I setup two physical interfaces (directly connected) with different mtu:s,
> only the size of the outgoing packets are limited by t
Hello,
I've noticed an inconsistency between how physical ethernet and veth handles
mtu.
If I setup two physical interfaces (directly connected) with different mtu:s,
only the size of the outgoing packets are limited by the mtu. But with veth a
packet is dropped if the mtu of the receiving int
