Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:53:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ALTQ integration developer preview Message-ID: <3CE61675.BCE2A9E1@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10205170216500.29826-100000@ady.warpnet.ro> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205171056200.2091-100000@scribble.fsn.hu> <3CE55A9B.73EA3DE4@mindspring.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205181018300.10011-100000@scribble.fsn.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Attila Nagy wrote: > > > the "em" driver (if "gx" is already in the initial plan), because it > > > reportedly works better (for example I couldn't do NFS serving with UDP > > > packets bigger than the MTU with that, while the "em" driver works OK). > > > > It *does* frag packets bigger than the MTU, right? > > netstat didn't show any errors regarding to that. If I used an NFS > readsize, smaller than the 1500 bytes MTU it worked (was slow, but > worked). > netstat's frag counters were increased. > I couldn't use tcpdump (I had no bpf support) to see what happens on the > wire... Sending datagrams bigger than the MTU is a bad idea. I would be real tempted to drop the packets and send "don't fragment" ICMP responses to beat up anyone who abused UDP by sending larger than the MTU. I guess this is about Linux UDP NFS clients, in particular. -- Terry 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?3CE61675.BCE2A9E1>