From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 20 14:21:29 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FD5199; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:21:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@rewt.org.uk) Received: from hosted.mx.as41113.net (abby.lhr1.as41113.net [91.208.177.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A372348; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:21:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.218] (staff-ns50-3.as25178.net [212.9.98.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lists@rewt.org.uk) by hosted.mx.as41113.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3cKDhM3kQRzZq; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:21:23 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <52137B62.3000405@rewt.org.uk> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:21:22 +0100 From: Joe Holden User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lev@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/181388: [route] Routes not updated on mtu change References: <201308190700.r7J701I9045665@freefall.freebsd.org> <5211D812.5070308@rewt.org.uk> <20130820011254.GZ94127@funkthat.com> <521327EB.6010407@rewt.org.uk> <162512031.20130820124633@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <162512031.20130820124633@serebryakov.spb.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:21:29 -0000 On 20/08/2013 09:46, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Joe. > You wrote 20 августа 2013 г., 12:25:15: > > JH> vlan interfaces achieve the same thing without having to mess about with > JH> mtus on routes and also give you an interface to work with, a much nicer > JH> method comparatively. > But it could put huge load on routing between these two segments and/or > requires managed switches. > Neither really, don't need a managed switch to use dot1q and if you're routing between segments with a box, then you shouldn't be using multiple ranges in the same broadcast domain anyway. Networking 101