[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVKJp5Dg_x-ymJa-wpLbbgUpn2cQv+--eXRwr2Eh23Vgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 20:27:10 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Fredrik Markström <fredrik.markstrom@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: Set maximum receive packet size on veth interfaces
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Fredrik Markström
<fredrik.markstrom@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe I was unclear, the veth implementation drops all packers larger then the
> configured MTU (on the receiving interface).
> Most ethernet drivers accepts packets up to the ethernet MTU no matter the
> configured MTU. As far as I can tell from the RFC:s that is ok.
This is because IP layer does the fragmentation for you. But some drivers,
for example tg3, drop packet larger than its dev->mtu very early too.
>
> A simpler solution would be to only drop packets larger then ethernet MTU (like
> most network drivers), but I guess that will break existing stuff
> already out there.
I wonder why did we introduce that mtu check for veth when IP layer
could either fragment or reject with ICMP?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists