From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 1 09:56:45 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37F8CB0A for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 09:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FD70EDE for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 09:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t119ujEI070739 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 09:56:45 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 197059] network locks up with IPv6 udp traffic Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 09:56:45 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: rwatson@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ae@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 09:56:45 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197059 --- Comment #3 from Robert Watson --- A further note on the problem: A good question is whether the current behaviour actually makes sense: do we really need to notify all sockets of a change in MTU discovered by one socket on transmit? Or can we just let the others sockets discover the change on demand as they next try to transmit? (I don't take a strong view on the answer, except to point out that it would be simpler if, as in IPv4, we didn't try to notify all sockets of the event.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.