From owner-freebsd-net  Wed Mar 14  9:20:11 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A74437B71A
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:20:09 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie)
Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP
          id <aa85840@salmon>; 14 Mar 2001 17:20:08 +0000 (GMT)
To: Lars Eggert <larse@ISI.EDU>
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: UDP datagram max size. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:15:49 PST."
             <3AAFA745.AA3EC6B6@isi.edu> 
X-Request-Do: 
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:20:07 +0000
From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID:  <200103141720.aa85840@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> So it may be okay to punt on jumbograms for now, and use a 64K static
> buffer like the patch in the PR does. Even if you do implement support for
> jumbograms, I think keeping the 64K static buffer around as a "fast-path"
> for the common case makes sense.

Does it talk about how jumbograms will apply to UDP? I suspect the
max udp data size might be unchanged anyway...

The problem remains even if I punt on jumbograms though, how should
I spell 65536?

	David.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message