From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL PATCH] 2.4 tulip jumbo frames Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:22:34 -0800 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3FE3EAAA.6020608@candelatech.com> References: <20031209160632.D1345@sygehus.dk> <3FD5FC36.5090405@pobox.com> <20031209223214.A1855@sygehus.dk> <3FD64EC9.6010203@candelatech.com> <20031209224906.M53356@sygehus.dk> <20031219153242.B1390@sygehus.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, jgarzik@pobox.com Return-path: To: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen In-Reply-To: <20031219153242.B1390@sygehus.dk> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: > 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? Because correctly patched drivers can have eth0 with MTU 1500 and vlan eth0.5 with MTU of 1500 as well. I do not want to add artificial policy in vconfig or the kernel,though of course users can hack up the MTU settings manually as desired... Ben -- Ben Greear President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear