From owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 10 03:41:59 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA2A16A4CE for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 03:41:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp4.jp.viruscheck.net (smtp4.jp.viruscheck.net [154.33.69.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03D643D2F for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 03:41:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bland@FreeBSD.org) Received: from scan4.jp.viruscheck.net ([154.33.69.39] helo=mail4.jp.viruscheck.net) by smtp4.jp.viruscheck.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1BuNWJ-0002bl-00; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:41:51 +0900 Received: from [220.221.2.219] (helo=noc.orchid) by mail4.jp.viruscheck.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #3) id 1BuNWJ-0003Ff-00; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:41:51 +0900 Received: from [89.60.10.11] (horse.orchid [89.60.10.11]) by noc.orchid (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7A3fnAB079447; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:41:50 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from bland@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <411843FD.4090201@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:41:49 +0900 From: Alexander Nedotsukov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a2) Gecko/20040714 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Rabson References: <4116EA33.8040405@FreeBSD.org> <200408090859.34574.dfr@nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <200408090859.34574.dfr@nlsystems.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: max MTU for fwip device. X-BeenThere: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Firewire support in FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 03:41:59 -0000 Doug Rabson wrote: >On Monday 09 August 2004 04:06, Alexander Nedotsukov wrote: > > >>Hi again, >>Is there any reason why we do not support MTUs higher than 1500 bytes >>on firewire links? >> >> > >Basically, we are limited by the specification. The rfc states that the >default MTU should be 1500 bytes. From the spec: "NOTE: IP-capable >nodes may operate with an MTU size larger than the default, but the >means by which a larger MTU is configured are beyond the scope of this >document." > > Well standards are good. But I don't see any restriction here. In fact I belive that effective MTU should be evaluated from maximum payload table (RFC2734 Table 1) and ieee1394 header size. Anyway this 1500 which comes from 10Mbit ethernet land may be good for default but manual configuration should not be prohibited. Btw default MTU size on MacOSX for fw? interface is 2030 which is 10 bytes less that theoretical maximum for S400 async stream. All the best, Alexander.