From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Jumbo frame question... Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:39:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4A69E3CF.1040805@hp.com> References: <200907241141.55097.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> <20090724.093243.201296391.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.45]:40022 "EHLO g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239AbZGXQjp (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:39:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090724.093243.201296391.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Robin Getz > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:41:55 -0400 > >>Should a gigabit card, configured as 100, be sending jumbo UDP frames? >> >>My understanding, is no - this is a spec violation.. In so far as there is no de jure spec for Jumbo Frames, it is rather difficult to have a spec violation :). > There is nothing wrong with supporting jumbo frames > when the speed is lower than 1GB. > > If you configure the MTU to be jumbo size, it should > be no surprise to you that this is what gets used. Not a case of too much rope? Given that (IIRC) Jumbo Frame was not introduced in Ethernet NICs until Gigabit came along (eg Alteon), the chances a (legacy) 100 Mbit/s network would have JF-capable NICs is epsilon. rick jones > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html