From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jul 20 12:55:10 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4508116A421
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:55:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from karels@redrock.karels.net)
Received: from redrock.karels.net (redrock.karels.net [206.196.45.2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DC513C4DB
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:55:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from karels@redrock.karels.net)
Received: from redrock.karels.net (localhost.karels.net [127.0.0.1])
	by redrock.karels.net (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l6KCpx7G033770;
	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:52:00 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from karels@redrock.karels.net)
Message-Id: <200707201252.l6KCpx7G033770@redrock.karels.net>
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
From: Mike Karels <karels@karels.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:46:47 -0700.
	<469EDEA7.9000606@elischer.org> 
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:51:59 -0500
Sender: karels@karels.net
Cc: Tom Judge <tom@tomjudge.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 6.2 mtu now limits size of incomming packet 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: karels@karels.net
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:55:10 -0000

> Mike Karels wrote:
> >> There are also things to consider such as if a GigE card is connected to 
> >> a GigE device (switch/card etc) and the card supports jumbo frames 
> >> should the MRU be set to the max jumbo receive size for the card? This 
> >> could cause confusion when people plug jumbo capable devices in with 
> >> hardware limitations making the MRU lower than other devices on the network.
> > 
> > Although we don't have an MRU explicitly, we don't enable reception
> > of jumbo frames without administrator action.  There is an IFCAP_JUMBO_MTU
> > flag defined, but not previously used as far as I know.  We added the
> > ability to set that flag with ifconfig, which enables reception of
> > jumbo frames without changing the MTU.  Then, in ether_input, we accept
> > any packet that a NIC sees fit to receive.

> for what values of "we"?

Sorry, that's Secure Computing.  I was elaborating on a change I had
mentioned earlier.

		Mike