Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:39:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Runt frames = broken VLAN ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.10.10108281623020.19482-100000@spider.pilosoft.com> In-Reply-To: <200108282008.f7SK88340636@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 15:53:31 -0400 (EDT), Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> said: > > > 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. > > Runt-ness is not a property of the contents of the frame, it's a > property of the wire the frame is sent on. A frame bridged from > another network with no minimum frame length must be properly padded > upon output if it is to be sent on an Ethernet. Looking up the authoritative source: http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1Q.html (click through on download, you need to accept terms), I'm wrong, so apologies. Section 7.2 (and C.4.4) says that switch or end station MAY pad the frame to be 68 bytes, but it is not required, and that this frame must be padded to 64 bytes when transmitted to non-trunk interface. C.4.4.3 clearly states that "The implication of this is that, for correct operation on 802.3/Ethernet, all devices have to be capable of correctly handling tagged frames of less than 68 octets in length (C.4.4.3)." But it still would be nice for it to interoperate with cisco by implementing that optional thing...;) -alex 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.4.10.10108281623020.19482-100000>