From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:39:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:38:58 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:27150 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:38:43 -0400 Subject: Re: change_mtu boundary checking error To: shmulik.hen@intel.com (Hen, Shmulik) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:40:34 +0100 (BST) Cc: linux-net@vger.kernel.org ('LNML'), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ('LKML') In-Reply-To: <07E6E3B8C072D211AC4100A0C9C5758302B271DB@hasmsx52.iil.intel.com> from "Hen, Shmulik" at Apr 17, 2001 05:29:05 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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