Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:53:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Runt frames = broken VLAN ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.10.10108281549570.19482-100000@spider.pilosoft.com> In-Reply-To: <200108281759.f7SHxh439282@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:35:36 -0700, Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> said: > > > But doesn't the switch have to assume that the VLAN will be attached to > > some non-trunked ports, in which case the packets must be an appropriate > > length. > > The minimum length needs to be enforced at the output interface. > (A switch would need to do so anyway for locally-generated packets.) Disagree. Packet is either a runt or not a runt. It cannot be inconsistently bridged it to one (trunk) interface but not to (access) interface. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSO.4.10.10108281549570.19482-100000>