From owner-freebsd-net Tue Aug 28 12:53:18 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from spider.pilosoft.com (p55-222.acedsl.com [160.79.55.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA29937B407 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@pilosoft.com) Received: from localhost (alexmail@localhost) by spider.pilosoft.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20294; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:53:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Pilosov To: Garrett Wollman Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Runt frames = broken VLAN ? In-Reply-To: <200108281759.f7SHxh439282@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < 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