From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe Date: 26 Feb 2004 20:49:00 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040226194900.GA8230@colin2.muc.de> 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> <20040223133233.71eecc99.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, ak@muc.de, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:49:00 +0100 To: "David S. Miller" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040223133233.71eecc99.davem@redhat.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Sorry for the late answer. On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:32:33PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > > 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? I don't think it should be only sized for big datagrams and other obscure cases. Better is a reasonable default to fit at least 64K of data with a standard MTU like ~1.4K. Or may resize it on MTU change, but I'm not sure that's worth the effort. Are you working on this or should I prepare a new patch? -Andi