From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:32:33 -0800 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040223133233.71eecc99.davem@redhat.com> References: <20040223105359.GA91938@colin2.muc.de> <20040223.200101.39143636.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20040223111659.GB10681@colin2.muc.de> <20040223.203843.04073965.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20040223102613.33838132.davem@redhat.com> <20040225211526.74478066.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, ak@muc.de, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <20040225211526.74478066.ak@suse.de> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:15:26 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote: [ mostrows removed from CC:, he bounces and this is no longer a pppoe discussion anymore :) ] > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:26:13 -0800 > "David S. Miller" wrote: > > > 1) IPV4 icmp sents sk_sndbuf of it's sockets to "2 * SK_WMEM_MAX", that's not > > what it really wants. What it really wants is enough space to hold > > ~2 full sized IPV4 packets, roughly 2 * 64K + struct sk_buff overhead > > and thus that is what it should be using there. > > Just sk_buff overhead for what MTU? 576? (would be a bit extreme) > And in theory it could be one byte packets too. Two full sized ICMP echo responses (64K) of data plus 2 struct sk_buff, for example. > > 2) IPV6 icmp does the same as ipv4, except this value is even more wrong there > > especially considering jumbograms. With current code, sending a jumbogram > > ipv6 icmp packet would simply fail, and I wonder if anyone has even tried > > this. > > Isn't even ICMPv6 limited to the minimum guaranteed MTU (1000 something) like ICMPv4 is to > 576 bytes? What about ECHO? I can't send an ICMPv6 jumbo sized ECHO and expect a fully quoted response back?