netdev - Re: [PATCH] vlan: propogate MTU changes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48EA9981.1020109@trash.net>
Date:	Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:04:33 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vlan: propogate MTU changes

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Rick Jones wrote:
>> If physical interface MTUs are going to be bouncing around and VLANs 
>> get their MTUs changed then perhaps a VLAN needs both a desired and 
>> actual MTU setting.  The VLAN's interface would then be the minimum of 
>> the desired and actual MTU.  I suppose it isn't too unlike having both 
>> an administrative (desired) and operational (actual) interface state.
> 
> Thats assuming that the VLAN device is actually restricted by the
> ethernet device settings. I don't know if its always not the case,
> but I'm pretty sure it usually isn't. Which means there's no real
> need for an operational state wrt. MTUs.

Actually it would be useful to have this kind of information on the
*ethernet* device to specify the upper limit.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html