From: David Newall
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:40:25 +0930
> On 20/05/14 14:25, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> So yes, we*do* need to do something sensible there - either frag the
>> packet
>> on the way out, or something.
>
> I think the problem is that a bridge cannot be used across
> incompa
On 20/05/14 14:25, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So yes, we*do* need to do something sensible there - either frag the packet
on the way out, or something.
I think the problem is that a bridge cannot be used across incompatible
media. That's the job of a router.
A bridge should act like a
On 05/20/2014 12:55 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 23:49:22 +0930, David Newall said:
>
>> How does a packet get fragmented in this case? Does it only happen when
>> bridging to a device with smaller MTU? That scenario sounds quite
>> un-bridge-like. It also sounds lik
On Mon, 19 May 2014 23:49:22 +0930, David Newall said:
> How does a packet get fragmented in this case? Does it only happen when
> bridging to a device with smaller MTU? That scenario sounds quite
> un-bridge-like. It also sounds like something that can be handled by
> real routing.
Which does
Thanks for the reply. I've been hanging out for it!
On 19/05/14 23:31, Florian Westphal wrote:
Well, did you test what happens if we try to refrag a packet
containing ip options after the revert?
can happen e.g. when using netfilter conntrack on top of a bridge.
No. I expect it would panic,
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Revert 462fb2af9788a82a534f8184abfde31574e1cfa0 (bridge :
> Sanitize skb before it enters the IP stack)
> Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 00:03:16 +0930
> From: David Newall
> To: Lukas Tribus , Eric Dumazet
> , Netde
462fb2af9788a82a534f8184abfde31574e1cfa0 (bridge :
Sanitize skb before it enters the IP stack)
Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 00:03:16 +0930
From: David Newall
To: Lukas Tribus , Eric Dumazet
, Netdev
CC: f...@strlen.de
We should revert commit 462fb2af9788a82a534f8184abfde31574e1cfa0 (bridge
: Sanitize
7 matches
Mail list logo
