> Von: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Gesendet: 24.04.2002 20:00
> > This creates a support issue. It's almost impossible to field
> > bug reports effectively once you start letting users do stuff
> > like this.
> We let users do much worse: rm -fr /
> won't even warn you.
But it would do, what we expect. VLAN on a e.g. unpatched tulip driver is somewhat unpredictable.
You can hope any application is using small packets, but if not things get worse.
> I'm all for warning the user, but since the
> MTU issue can be worked around by setting the VLAN MTU to 1496,
> and sometimes setting the eth0 MTU to 1504, then putting hard
> restrictions in the kernel sounds like a really bad idea.
This sounds very "experimental". What about the non-VLAN packets on eth0, when you set the MTU
I like the NETIF_F_VLAN_CHALLENGED capability in the driver itself, which is then tested by the net subsystem on
creation of a VLAN. No more tweaks and fiddling around with MTU and framesizes.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 30 2002 - 22:00:10 EST