[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141204101707.GB17122@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:17:07 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
"Du, Fan" <fan.du@...el.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"fw@...len.de" <fw@...len.de>,
"dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] gso: do GSO for local skb with size bigger than MTU
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 10:56:02AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> Trying to "fake-out" an ICMP message to paper-over "devices" in the "middle"
> of same Layer2 network having different MTUs from the ends goes back to at
> least the days when people started joining FDDI networks to Ethernet
> networks with bridges rather than routers. Perhaps back even further. It
> had problems them (including not all traffic being IP), I doubt today would
> be any different.
>
> All devices in a Layer2 network must have the same MTU. (*)
>
> The only exception to that which does not lead one down a rathole is that
> you can have the MTU at the "edges" of the Layer 2 network be smaller than
> the MTU in the "middle." And then only if the middle "never" tries to talk
> itself to the edges directly.
>
> rick jones
>
> (*) Or at least any communicating device must be kept ignorant of what one
> does to have a smaller MTU in there somewhere.
What I've been pointing out is that just because something is within a VM,
we can't assume it's an edge.
--
MST
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists