From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois WELLENREITER Subject: Does IPv6 support Jumbograms ? Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 21:42:43 +0200 Message-ID: <5345A2B3.7040602@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]:55302 "EHLO mail-wi0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932847AbaDITmr (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:42:47 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id cc10so9523036wib.14 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e34:ef74:28b0:2289:84ff:fea6:56c1? ([2a01:e34:ef74:28b0:2289:84ff:fea6:56c1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h19sm6252471wiw.17.2014.04.09.12.42.44 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi there, I've been recently running performance tests with the loopback interfac= e increasing the MTU over the 65535 byte limit. I was really surprised to see that a simple scp onto the ::1 address systematically blocked after transferring about 2,4 MB. My interpretation of this behavior is that the current IPv6 kernel laye= r does not support Jumbograms at all. Am I wrong ? If that's not the case, what could then the right interpretation of thi= s issue ? And whenever I'm right, is there any plan to support this feature in a near future ? Thanks in advance for any help. Regards, Fran=E7ois