Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:53:31 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com>
To:        Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc:        freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Runt frames = broken VLAN ?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSO.4.10.10108281549570.19482-100000@spider.pilosoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <200108281759.f7SHxh439282@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote:

> <<On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:35:36 -0700, Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> said:
> 
> > But doesn't the switch have to assume that the VLAN will be attached to
> > some non-trunked ports, in which case the packets must be an appropriate
> > length.
> 
> The minimum length needs to be enforced at the output interface.
> (A switch would need to do so anyway for locally-generated packets.)

Disagree. Packet is either a runt or not a runt. It cannot be
inconsistently bridged it to one (trunk) interface but not to (access)
interface.


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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSO.4.10.10108281549570.19482-100000>