From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen Subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL PATCH] 2.4 tulip jumbo frames Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:32:42 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20031219153242.B1390@sygehus.dk> References: <20031209160632.D1345@sygehus.dk> <3FD5FC36.5090405@pobox.com> <20031209223214.A1855@sygehus.dk> <3FD64EC9.6010203@candelatech.com> <20031209224906.M53356@sygehus.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, jgarzik@pobox.com Return-path: To: Ben Greear Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031209224906.M53356@sygehus.dk>; from rask@sygehus.dk on Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:40:02AM +0100 Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:40:02AM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: > That said, even checking CONFIG_VLAN_8021Q is probably flawed too, because > ideally, even when building a kernel without VLAN support, you should be able > to use the bridging support in a VLAN environment. IMHO. I mean, if this is > not the case, please remind me why we need VLAN patches in the first place > since setting an MTU of 1496 bytes works with every Ethernet board and driver. Further, why is it not the responsibility of vconfig to ensure that the MTU of the VLAN device is 4 lower than that of the underlying, "bare" Ethernet device? -- Regards, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen