From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:25:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:25:45 -0400 Received: from jffdns01.or.intel.com ([134.134.248.3]:59370 "EHLO ganymede.or.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:25:33 -0400 Message-ID: <07E6E3B8C072D211AC4100A0C9C5758302B271DD@hasmsx52.iil.intel.com> From: "Hen, Shmulik" To: linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: "'Alan Cox'" Subject: RE: change_mtu boundary checking error Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:25:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org But Ethernet is not only for IP, what about other protocols ? -----Original Message----- From: Alan Cox [mailto:alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 3:41 PM To: shmulik.hen@intel.com Cc: linux-net@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: change_mtu boundary checking error > Now, the high boundary seemed reasonable (ETH_FRAME_LEN - ETH_HLEN = > ETH_DATA_LEN) which gives 1500, but why is the low boundary set to 68 ? > According to my calculations, it should have been ETH_ZLEN - ETH_HLEN which > gives 46. The IPv4 minimum MTU is 68 bytes. Below that not all frames can be delivered